Subject: [Monami6] a question about Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6

From: Sam Xia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:42:20 +0800

Hello, everyone,
          I am confused about a sentence in Analysis of Multihoming in
Mobile IPv6. 
The sentence is "The fact that a mobile node has multiple interfaces does
not 
imply that it has multiple HoAs and vice-versa" and located at the last
paragragh on page 10.
          I think one interface should have a corresponding address or more.
So, if a mobile node is in its home, each of its interfaces has a address at
least.

Anyone can give me the detailed explaination or a scenario? Thanks.

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

---

From: Gábor Fekete <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:14:08 +0300

Hi Sam,

> Anyone can give me the detailed explaination or a scenario? Thanks.

Read it like:
"A mobile node with multiple interfaces may or may not have multiple HoAs."
"A mobile node with multiple HoAs may or may not have multiple interfaces."

So, I guess you have concerns with the "MN is at home with multiple interfaces"
case. Well, in that case it "may have multiple HoAs".
I assume that:
The MN has a HoA == The MN has assigned the HoA to one of its physical interfaces or
has a binding at the HA for HoA.

Gabor

---

From: "Starry.Lin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:12:27 +0800

In my opinion, i think it's to say that some/all interfaces of a MN may have
the same HA and HoA. For instance, you can image a MN have both WLAN and
WCDMA interface, and the WLAN and WCDMA access services are both provided by
the same Operator. Thus the MN's interface on the WLAN and interface on the
WCDMA network may use the same HA and HoA provided by the same Operator. An
other scenario is that no matter how many access capabilities the MN has,
the Mobile IP, as a service, is provided by one operator.
Any way, the key point is that multiple interfaces only imply that the MN
has multiple CoA on each interface( if the interface is active), not the
HoA.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Xia [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 3:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Monami6] a question about Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6

Hello, everyone,

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:04:19 +0200

Hi,

>has multiple CoA on each interface( if the interface is active), not the
This is a good interpretation of the sentence.
A MN may have multiple interfaces (possibly bound to multiple CoAs), and 
ony one HoA.

Nicolas

---

From: "Tero Kauppinen (JO/LMF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:08:12 +0300

> has multiple CoA on each interface( if the interface is active), not the

I don't understand the part "multiple interfaces only imply that the MN 
has multiple CoAs on each interface". I think it should say "multiple 
(active) interfaces only imply that the MN has multiple CoAs. Each 
interface can have one or more CoAs (if the interface is active)." 
Moreover, the MN can have more than one HoA despite the number of 
interfaces (i.e. multihomed).

-- 
Tero

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:16:45 +0200

Tero Kauppinen (JO/LMF) wrote:

> I don't understand the part "multiple interfaces only imply that the 
> MN has multiple CoAs on each interface". I think it should say 
> "multiple (active) interfaces only imply that the MN has multiple CoAs.

Agree, but this is the text of Starry. Did you find something like this 
in the draft?

> Each interface can have one or more CoAs (if the interface is 
> active)." Moreover, the MN can have more than one HoA despite the 
> number of interfaces (i.e. multihomed).

This is what we wanted to say with the sentence mentioned in an earlier 
email:

"The fact that a mobile node has multiple interfaces does not imply that 
it has multiple HoAs and vice-versa"

Nicolas

---

From: "Tero Kauppinen (JO/LMF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:26:35 +0300

> Agree, but this is the text of Starry. Did you find something like this 

Nope, I was just referring to Starry's sentence.

> it has multiple HoAs and vice-versa"

Sure, I don't have problems in understanding the sentence, but maybe it 
should be written a little bit differently if some people find it 
confusing.

Cowardly escaping without posting a proposal...
Tero

---

From: "Starry.Lin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:08:26 +0800

Thanks Tero's comments. I agree that his expression is more exactly. Each
interface can have more than one CoA(also in most condition, there is one).
And what's more, the MN can have more than one HoA if there are more than
one prefix on the link, even if the MN is not multihoming.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tero Kauppinen (JO/LMF) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:08 PM
To: Monami6 WG
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Monami6] a question about Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile
IPv6

-- 
Tero