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

[<Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>]

Hi Gerardo,

I agree that it is indeed a corner case and hence maybe not worth the effort to really solve the problem.
In reality, I guess an MN attaching to a physical HL of the HA/LMA is quite unlikely (not impossible especially if your HA is your home CPE router). 
And thanks to Sri for clarifying on how prefixes are delegated and hence not hosted on the HL.

-Raj 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Giaretta, Gerardo [mailto:gerardog at qualcomm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:03 PM
To: Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-D/Dallas); netlmm at ietf.org
Subject: RE: 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
>