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

["Sri Gundavelli" <sgundave at cisco.com>]

I think, probably you have some good usecase in mind,
femto type models. I was not sure about the HA placement,
or how CMIP is helping on the home link. I guess, the
usecase is the key....


Regards
Sri

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netlmm-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:netlmm-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:09 AM
> To: gerardog at qualcomm.com; netlmm at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Is this scenario covered in 
> netlmm-mip-interactionsI-D?
> 
> 
> 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
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmm at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm