Re: [Mipshop] Review of Transient Binding Spec

[Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch at nw.neclab.eu>]

Koodli, Rajeev schrieb:
>  
>
>   
> > > 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.
> >
> >     
>
> Yes.
>
>   
> > 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.
> >
> >     
>
> It can be both ways.. You do have to configure a lot of things, and
> configuring the link-local address of each of your MAGs from CLI may be
> okay.
>
> Back to my comment, the current description is incomplete. In
> deployments where the MAG link-local address is pre-configured, I don't
> see why the nMAG is going to the LMA.. I know it is described to fetch
> HNP, but from handover point of view, it is sufficient that the MN gets
> an RA from the "same" router (i.e., from the same link-local address).
> Am I missing anything here?
>   
not if the interface changes and needs configuration, this includes 
reception of
the HNP, which comes from the LMA. We could add a note and examples of
configuration parameters, which are retrieved from the LMA.

marco

> -Rajeev
>
>   
> > Vijay
> >
> >     
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshop at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>