Re: [MEXT] About the flow binding charter item

[arno at natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard)]

Hi Thierry,

Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst at inria.fr> writes:

>> 2- whether the information should be sent from the MN to the HA only
>> or it should also be sent from the HA to the MN and if the
>> information exchanged in each direction should affect the CoA and/or
>> the HA address.
> I would recommend to rephrase the question in 2.a and 2.b
>
> 2.a.: Unidirectional exchange or bidirectional ?
>
> In MonAmi6 times, we definitely wanted to have a bidirectional
> exchange of rules and I think we should stick to it. It will be
> required in some usage scenarios.

Can you quickly describe those scenarios.

> 2.b. Affect CoA only, and/or HA address ?
>
> and we wanted to influence the choice of the HoA too though this was
> not agreed for setting up MonAmi6 as a group so this was rephrased and
> HA address appeared instead, as a compromise. I wish we keep the
> possibility to influence the choice of the HA address.
>
> Now, this said, the current drafts may or may not address all of these
> (they may not if this would bring them to square one as we need these
> draft to be published), but these shall be kept in the charter,
> definitely.

When you say "influence the choice of the HoA", you mean provide the
ability for the MN using the flow binding solution with a CN to have
traffic routed to the HoA instead of some CoA, i.e. bypass RO. Or sth
else? 

Cheers,

a+