[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MEXT] Comments on draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-13
Hello all,
On Thursday 14 May 2009, Arnaud Ebalard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji.wakikawa at gmail.com> writes:
> >> From my perspective, MCoA *is* about binding management.
> >
> > From the protocol point of view, we have two choices here.
> > - having special binding for the HoA destination
> > - having flow management to skip RO
I am sympathetic to the view that MCoA is about multiple binding
management.
It is also my understanding that it would not make sense to create a
special binding for the HoA: a MIPv6 binding is between a HoA and
another address, the CoA. It would not make sense to bind the HoA to
itself.
Thus, I think the functionality we've talking about can be implemented
in a semantically clean way by "having flow management to skip RO" as
Ryuji puts it.
> > Since RO is not so important at this point, we should go with the
> > minimal spec which mean the second option.
>
> From my perspective, RO is important.
I agree it is, but as I try to point out above, diverting some of the
traffic to the HoA while other traffic goes to (one of) the CoA is in
my view a flow management issue and has nothing to do with multiple
binding management.
> > You can put all the possible features in the MCoA, but the draft is
> > not discussed in that direction at this stage.
>
> Julien, George, what do you think? Is the feature a simple and
> logical addition for the flow-inding draft? If not, I fail to see how
> it can be specified in an external document extending both (MCoA and
> flow-binding).
I happen to believe that it's reasonable simple to add the feature to
the flow binding draft (one possibility would be to use BID set to zero
in a FID to indicate that forwarding to HoA is desired, as I believe
you proposed earlier.)
> [...]
>
> > We shouldn't change the semantics of BID for this.
> > We can't modify the spec after completing WG/IETF/IESG LC, but we
> > only accept minor changes for clarification and editorial errors.
> > Otherwise, we will get into endless cycles.
> >
> > Anyway, IMO, your feature can be achieved with the current MCoA
> > spec with flow binding.
>
> I'll let the final word to Julien and George.
Agree with Ryuji on this.
--julien