Re: [MEXT] Alt-CoA and PMIP6 (was RE: [netlmm] FW: comment ondraft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-01)

[Vijay Devarapalli <vijay at wichorus.com>]

Alper Yegin wrote:

>  > Note that only IP2 will be stored in the binding cache entry. IP1 will
>  > not be stored.
>
> You are saying this because RFC 3775 does not state that source IP address
> of the last received BU shall be stored. I think this is a bug in the light
> of the following statement (at the least):

No it is not. See below.

>    If the Source Address field of the IPv6 header that carried the
>    Binding Update does not contain a unicast address, the Binding
>    Acknowledgement MUST NOT be sent and the Binding Update packet MUST
>    be silently discarded.  Otherwise, the acknowledgement MUST be sent
>    to the Source Address.

When you are responding to the BU, the context associated with the BU is 
still available when you construct the BAck message. The above statement 
cannot be read as if it indicates that the source address is stored. :)

Vijay

> If we agree that the BA/PBA should be sent back to the source address of the
> BA/PBA then the fix is simple.
>
>  > So IP1 would not be available for sending a binding
>  > revocation message later on. Even if the HA stores IP1, it might not be
>  > valid later on (i.e., the MN might not be reachable on IP1 later).
>
> If the MN changes its point of attachment, then it is MN's responsibility to
> notify the HA if it wants to receive revocation messages.
>
> Alper


_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext