Subject: RE: [Monami6] Acceptdraft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-04.txt asMonami6 WG Document

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:48:26 -0400

Henrik,

I agree with your analysis. I also want to emphasise that
we don't need a CoA to search a BC. The HoA is conceptually
sufficient to locate an entry. If more than one CoA needs to
be stored, then IMO they are best stored in the same entry.
At least conceptually.

Hesham

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
 > Behalf Of Henrik Levkowetz
 > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:37 PM
 > To: Monami6 WG
 > Subject: Re: [Monami6] 
 > Acceptdraft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-04.txt
 > asMonami6 WG Document
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > on 2005-10-28 17:50 Soliman, Hesham said the following:
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 3. I dont understand the need for a BID. the draft says
 > > 
 > >> The BID is an identification number used to distinguish multiple
 > >> bindings registered by the mobile node.  Assignment of 
 > distinct BID
 > >> allows a mobile node to register multiple binding cache 
 > entries for
 > >> a given home address.
 > > 
 > > doesnt the HoA/CoA pair uniquely identify a binding? do you want a
 > > unique identifier for a particular binding even when the 
 > CoA changes?
 > > in that case why not associate the interface with a particular
 > > binding? maybe I am missing something.
 > > 
 > > 
 > >> In general, I think the BID is useful. At any given time, the
 > >> HoA/CoA pair is unique - however, when you want to update a
 > >> particular binding (i.e, replace CoA1a with CoA1b, say), the BID
 > >> will help locate the binding. Without it, you would have 
 > to include
 > >> CoA1a in the BU so that the HA/CN can identify the correct CoA to
 > >> replace with CoA1b.
 > > 
 > > => I agree with Vijay. In fact, the binding is uniquely 
 > identified by
 > > the HoA. If you want to add another CoA then the HA would search by
 > > the HoA and *add* another CoA to the binding, instead of 
 > the current
 > > behaviour, which is to replace the CoA. So, I don't see a need to
 > > have another identifier to the binding entry. And you don't need to
 > > include the old CoA in the BU.
 > 
 > I believe the following is a correct statement:  You can 
 > make everything
 > work just fine without a BID; by looking up bindings by HoA/CoA, and
 > referring  to bindings in the same way.  You could always say 'move
 > flow so-and-so to HoA/CoA pair thus-and-thus.
 > 
 > Viewed like this, the introduction of a BID is an extra indirection,
 > which may (or may not) be warranted by conceptual ease of handling
 > flow movement, or by protocol efficiency.
 > 
 > Protocol efficiency is best addressed after it is 
 > functionally complete
 > and one can analyze or measure where (if at all) it is deficient in
 > efficiency.  I'd suggest that as long as a BID is not functionally
 > necessary, it should be left out out, and only introduced if
 > measurements or stringent analysis show a clear performance benefit,
 > or alternatively a conceptual elegance which can sway the masses ;-)
 > 
 > 
 > 	Henrik
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Monami6 mailing list
 > [email-masked]
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
 > 

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6