Re: [Mipshop] Review of Transient Binding Spec

[Vijay Devarapalli <vijay at wichorus.com>]

Koodli, Rajeev wrote:
> Hi,
>  
>  
> > > RKo> I see below that HNP is such a parameter. Without HNP, the MN
> can
> > >    still continue to use the previously assigned HNP, right? From
> MN's
> > >    point of view, if it thinks that it's on the same default router,
> > >    it continues to use the assigned/advertised prefix unless NUD
> > >    [rfc4861] fails. For this, the MN needs to receive the RA from
> same 
> > >     link-local address as before. 

> > The nMAG might need to talk to the LMA, through PBU and 
> > PBACK, to figure out which link local address to use for the 
> > router advertisement.
>
> Even when the link-local address for the MAG is pre-configured? Probably
> not..

Thats why I used "might" in my email. :) the PMIPv6 specs do talk about 
both options, pre-configuring the link local address on all MAGs and 
storing the link local address on the LMA with each MAG fetching it from 
the LMA.

FWIW, I think pre-configuration is going to be painful, especially when 
the PMIPv6 domain spans multiple access technologies or multiple 
administrative domains. The second option, where the link local address 
is stored on the LMA, is more practical, I think.

Vijay