Subject: [Fwd: Re: bulk registration (was Re: [Monami6] Changes needed to MCoA draft?]

From: Heikki Mahkonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:14:39 +0300

Hi,

Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
> 
> MIP6 spec does not say to check the source address of BA with the sent CoA.
> OK, this can be easily fixed. I will fix this in next revision.
> 
==> I think if you are going to use the BID option specified in Martti's
mail this is not an issue...

> 
>>2. You cannot say that it is a bulk registration if in some cases you 
>>have to send more than one BU to the HA. In the other mail I specified a 
>>scenario (don't know how unlikly you think it is) where the MN cannot 
>>update all the BIDs/CoAs with a single BU. In this case the opinion was 
>>to send one or more BUs to remove not needed BIDs and one or more BU 
>>messages to update some of the BIDs. This is not a bulk registration... 
>>There could be several solutions for this using the lifetime field in 
>>the BID option, adding a remove flag to the BID option etc...
> 
> 
> MN can update all binding by sending single BU, because BID is kept
> same when binding is updated. 
> I think I've already replied to your previous mail.
>
==> Ken Nagami wrote in his mail...

> CoA of BID1 or BID2 needs to remove. MN sends BU with lifetime 0 and
> BID-option.
> In this case, I think it does not have a problem.
> MN needs to send bulk BU with reused BID and removed BID separately
 > in the current draft.
>
> BID1, HoA, CoA1  -> CoA4
> BID2, HoA, CoA2  -> remove
> BID3, HoQ, CoA3
>
> Regards,
> Ken Nagami
>
==> So this seems to me that in this situation you must resort into
sending multiple BUs. One with lifetime 0 and one with valid lifetime.
So you could use a flag (lets say R = remove) in BID option which is
added to the bulk(!) BU. Now if the R = 1 you can remove the BID in the
receiving end.

> 
>>3. No support for different binding lifetimes for different home 
>>ragistrations. This I quess is just a minor issue?
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate this? 
> 
==> When the MN sends a bulk BU message this message has only on
lifetime field in the BU header although this message might have several
CoAs from several different interfaces. Each of the CoAs from the
different interfaces might have a different valid lifetimes (or what is
left of them). I don't know how you have planned to implement this case
but seems to me that RFC 3775 requires you to make the home registration
with the smallest lifetime between the home or foreign prefixes. This
means that if you have several CoAs you have to choose the smallest
valid lifetime and use it in the BU header. So every binding will have
the same lifetime which in some cases could be quite short. This also
means that when it is time to refresh the bindings, the MN has to
refresh all the bindigs at the same time as they have the same lifetime
between them ==> bulk BU.

-Heikki

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

---

From: Ken Nagami <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:19:27 +0900

Hi Heikki,

>>>2. You cannot say that it is a bulk registration if in some cases 
>>>you have to send more than one BU to the HA. In the other mail I 
>>>specified a scenario (don't know how unlikly you think it is) 
>>>where the MN cannot update all the BIDs/CoAs with a single BU. In 
>>>this case the opinion was to send one or more BUs to remove not 
>>>needed BIDs and one or more BU messages to update some of the 
>>>BIDs. This is not a bulk registration... There could be several 
>>>solutions for this using the lifetime field in the BID option, 
>>>adding a remove flag to the BID option etc...
>>
>>same when binding is updated. I think I've already replied to 
>>your previous mail.

I understand this issue.
So, we will add a flag or a lifetime in the next MCOA draft.

Ken Nagami