Re: [MEXT] De-resgistering bindings in MCoA draft

[Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji.wakikawa at gmail.com>]

Hesham,

When you use the bulk registration, all bindings share the same lifetime
specified in BU message.  This is what you proposed here.  We also
have specified Overwrite flag to explicitly replace all the bindings
corresponding to the home address.

When MN does not use the bulk registration, each binding registering
with BID is treated as a regular binding. Each binding will have
individual lifetime. It is not the operation of BID removal, but of a binding removal.
Removing a binding with zero lifetime is consisitent with MIP6.

ryuji





At Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:43:33 +1100,
Hesham Soliman wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I have a comment on this aspect of the spec. The removal of BIDs based on
> zero lifetime is completely inconsistent with the processing of the BU in
> MIPv6. The lifetime should be for the entire binding cache for the home
> address. BIDs should be removed by explicitly by requesting a removal
> operation in the BID fields (or by simply excluding them from the new BU),
> not by giving them separate lifetimes. I don't see any reason for
> complicating things this way. This is not how a binding update is supposed
> to work. The way it works is that one BU replaces the previous one.
> 
> Hesham
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext