Re: [netlmm] Is this scenario covered in netlmm-mip-interactions I-D?

[<Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>]

Hi Sri,

I don't think it is really that hard to have the same node act as a DSMIP6 HA and LMA which also has a physical home link via which an MN could attach. Most of the current deployment models do not foresee a physical home link, but from a practical standpoint it is possible. 
Agree that the LMA is not defending an HoA, but a DSMIP6 MN can also request the registration of a prefix (rather than a HoA). I think you have a very specific deployment model in mind when you say that the prefix is delegated and never really hosted on a physical link of the LMA/HA. It is not expressly prohibited by RFC5213, is it?

Taking a step away from how the LMA/HA should be deployed in terms of physical or virtual home links etc and whether MIP^ should be for global vs PMIP6 for local mobility, do you agree that the scenario that I described is not really covered in the current netlmm-mip interactions I-D? 
And should we be addressing this issue.

-Raj

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Sri Gundavelli [mailto:sgundave at cisco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:53 PM
To: Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-D/Dallas)
Cc: netlmm at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Is this scenario covered in netlmm-mip-interactions I-D?

Hi Raj,

Collocation of the LMA and HA with physical home link will be difficult. In PMIPv6 domain, the prefix is a delegated prefix and is never hosted on any of the physical links of the LMA/HA.
Secondly, there is no HoA that the LMA defends, there is no Proxy ND defence by the LMA for the MN's HoA and infact the LMA will not even know the HoA of the MN. Given this, allowing the HA to host the MN's prefix on a physical link wont quite fit. So, I'd think in such LMA/HA collocation scenario's, the HA should not support physical links, it should be the PMIP/MAG that should be ob physical links and let HA be for global mobility, with PMIP supporting local mobility.

Sri

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com wrote:

>
> Just a quick question about the following scenario:
>
> Lets say a (DS)MIP6 capable MN is attached via a PMIP6 domain thru a MAG. The MN is assigned a prefix from the LMA/HA.
> To the MN it appears as if it is on its home link.
> The MN moves and attaches to its physical home link.
> The MN does not see any difference in terms of the home link (virtual or physical) and hence does not initiate any deregistration procedures.
> However the MN is unable to use the HoA/HNP until the binding in the LMA is deprecated.
> The MAG may eventually discover that the MN is no longer attached and send a dereg. However that detection may be delayed significantly.
>
> Is the above scenario and issue discussed in the netlmm-mip interactions I-D? At least I could not notice it.
>
> -Raj
>
>