Re: CARD issue#29: more text on use of "Context-ID" and "M-flag"required

I am against using this mechanism. why not just include
the L2_ID suboption in the CARD reply too? ofcourse it
would increase the number of bytes in the CARD reply,
but I think it helps in reducing the overall complexity
of the CARD protocol.

Vijay

Marco Liebsch wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> going through the remaining open issues, there are some
> important ones, which have not been discussed during the
> meeting in Vienna. Here is one:
> 
> There was a comment that more text w.r.t use of Context-ID
> and the M-flag is required. The proposal is to briefly describe
> the mechanism again and to solicit comments. After having agreed
> on a mechanism, more text will be added to the document.
> Please find a desciption/example of the proposed mechanism below:
> 
> Since the L2 ID, a CAR's IP address and associated capabilities come
> with separate sub-options in a CARD Request/Reply message,
> association is indicated using a Context-ID.
> Example:
> 
> MN listens to L2_ID(1) and L2_ID(2), sends them to its current AR
> in a CARD Request for resolution:
> 
> CARD Request (MN->AR)
> L2_ID(1) comes with one L2_ID sub-option, Conext-ID=1
> L2_ID(2) comes with one L2_ID sub-option, Conext-ID=2
> 
> Now, first assume both L2_IDs (APs) connect to 2 different
> CARs, hence, associated IP address and capability container
> is identified with the respective Context-ID :
> 
> CARD Reply (AR->MN)
> IP address of CAR(1) comes with capability container(1), both carry Context-ID=1.
> IP address of CAR(2) comes with capability container(2), both carry Context-ID=2.
> 
> Now assume L2_ID(2) and L2_ID(1) connect to the "same" CAR:
> IP address of CAR(1) comes with capability container(1), both carry Context-ID=1.
> L2_ID(2) comes back with "Context-ID=1", "M-flag=1".
> 
> M-flag avoids to send IP address and capability container of the same CAR
> back the the MN twice. Hence, Context-ID of L2_ID(2) has been re-addressed
> to Context-ID=1, M-flag indicates that Context-ID has been modified by the
> AR and that associated CAR IP address and associated capability container
> is the same as for a previously received IP-address/capability
> container pair, here indicated with Context-ID=1.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> marco
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby