Hi Ryuji,
On 2009/05/11, at 22:59, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
First, I'd like to express that I support Arnaud's opinion about
section 5.6 (Simultaneous Home and Visited Link Operation). I also
don't see what is the motivation to re-route and tunnel traffic
from the HA to one of the MN's CoA, while the MN is only one hop
from the HA. Even if there is a specific use-case, at the time
this topology was suggested, a simple solution that came out was
to configure a CoA on the Home link and use a tunnel via the home
link. I don't think the little overhead of this solution justifies
the complexity of the one proposed in the draft.
This was discussed at WG. We agreed to have this feature at the end.
I understand the complexity, but this is how WG agreed.
It is not possible to change the consensus at this moment. We
passed all last call.
Ok, this has also been extensively discussed in another thread -
I'll follow the WG agreement then.
Two other minor comments on the draft below:
- Section 6.2 (Processing Binding Update)
* If the 'O' flag is set in the Binding Update, the home agent
removes all the existing bindings and registers the received
binding(s).
It is not explicitly said that the MN can use the O flag with a
CN. I think nothing prevents the MN to use it, so we should
replace "home agent" with "receiving node".
You didn't ack the above comment, did you skip it by mistake?