Re: [MEXT] IPv4 home address option in DSMIP

[Hesham Soliman <hesham at elevatemobile.com>]

>> => Two reasons:
>> 1. This is how a BU works, all options need to be included in
>> order for a binding to be refreshed 2. The only way the MN
>> can delete the IPv4 binding is to not include it in the BU.
> 
> 1. BU without IPv4 home address option works well for extending lifetime. I
> can't understand what you said "how a BU works". Is there any Specification
> to require that BU for exending lifetime  must be consistent with BU for
> first register? Is there any special effect? In fact, with more and more
> extension for BU in future, the requirement that BU for exending lifetime
> must be consistent with BU for first register will cause unnecessary load.

=> Yes I know that will use more bandwidth but I don't understand what
you're objecting to. Implementations copy the contents of the new BU into
the BC to replace the old entry, as specified in 3775. So a new BU
overwrites the old one unless you desgin a new option per extension that
tells the receiver to only refresh.

> 
> 2. We can find many other ways to delete the IPv4 binding if it is consensus
> that re-registration BU does not have to include the IPv4 HAO. It could not
> be a resason for re-registration BU must including IPv4 HAO.

=> Well, that's the reason now, if you have better ideas, other than
designing a new option per extension please send them to the list. This is
already a bit late given that I'm making the last update for IESG comments.

Hesham

> 
>> 
>> Hesham
>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Xiaoyan
>> 
> 
> Regards,
> Xiaoyan
> 


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