[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [netlmm] Is this scenario covered in netlmm-mip-interactions I-D?
- To: "Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com" <Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>, "netlmm at ietf.org" <netlmm at ietf.org>
- Subject: Re: [netlmm] Is this scenario covered in netlmm-mip-interactions I-D?
- From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" <gerardog at qualcomm.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:02:51 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Delivered-to: netlmm at core3.amsl.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=gerardog at qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1256148173; x=1287684173; h=from:to:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version:x-ironport-av; z=From:=20"Giaretta,=20Gerardo"=20<gerardog at qualcomm.com> |To:=20"Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com"=20<Basavaraj.Patil at nok ia.com>,=0D=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20"netlmm at ietf.org" =0D=0A=09<netlmm at ietf.org>|Date:=20Wed,=2021=20Oct=202009 =2011:02:51=20-0700|Subject:=20RE:=20Is=20this=20scenario =20covered=20in=20netlmm-mip-interactions=20I-D? |Thread-Topic:=20Is=20this=20scenario=20covered=20in=20ne tlmm-mip-interactions=20I-D?|Thread-Index:=20AcpRzfie+Myh 74fDSfWglLZT9gukBAAqnI/w|Message-ID:=20<057632CE4CE10D45A 1A3D6D19206C3A301C78A05B1 at NASANEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com> |References:=20<FAAB54171A6C764E969E6B4CB3C2ADD20D89810FA 4 at NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com>|In-Reply-To:=20<FAAB5417 1A6C764E969E6B4CB3C2ADD20D89810FA4 at NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.no kia.com>|Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en- US|X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|acceptlanguage: =20en-US|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-as cii"|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |MIME-Version:=201.0|X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DMcAfee=3Bi=3D"5 300,2777,5778"=3B=20a=3D"25768400"; bh=cWq8/J4RWWaTKMTFkA5VqF9Dim5mQl03uZTZb6wtCus=; b=mAB/9lrZqOhhrrmfwcmRpipiKRxNKJ8c7Wr0EG1ZziouRU8pmQmgQLGA WT4S/XAJefuFfXlMZqwcUCw+DByaztj5ltWX7MvoOgtxx+odB2Gf+imrN G53D/t8DGojDOPD00nNg862Zshn15tS7VsE5SyxahgGj7MiUWHuA9dFiI I=;
- In-reply-to: <FAAB54171A6C764E969E6B4CB3C2ADD20D89810FA4 at NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com>
- List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm>
- List-help: <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: NETLMM working group discussion list <netlmm.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:netlmm@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <FAAB54171A6C764E969E6B4CB3C2ADD20D89810FA4 at NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com>
- Thread-index: AcpRzfie+Myh74fDSfWglLZT9gukBAAqnI/w
- Thread-topic: Is this scenario covered in netlmm-mip-interactions I-D?
Hi Raj,
I think the scenario you are describing is completely a PMIPv6 issue as also pointed out by Sri and not an interaction problem. The assumption for MIPv6 is that LMA is always tunneling the packets. If we want to solve this corner case (do we?), we need to make changes to PMIPv6
Gerardo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netlmm-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:netlmm-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:43 PM
> To: netlmm at ietf.org
> Subject: [netlmm] Is this scenario covered in netlmm-mip-interactions I-D?
>
>
> 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
>