Subject: [netlmm] Node failure detection in PMIPv6

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:59:13 -0400

Hi Folks,
   How will the MAG and LMA determine if the other peer has gone down?
This is required because the MAG and the LMA need to flush out some
state if the other node goes down.

Undeliverable tunneled data packets are a reliable indication that the
peer is no longer alive, but they cannot be a reliable indication about
whether the peer went down. We probably need to add some mechanism into
the PMIP protocol itself for this purpose.

Cheers
Suresh

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

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:07:16 -0500

Hi Suresh,

I don't think there is a need to add liveness check (between MAG and LMA)
within the base protocol. You can employ some out-of-band mechanisms to
achieve the same result. I do not think we need to add more features to the
base protocol. 

-Raj

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:13:16 -0700

Hi Suresh,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 3:59 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [netlmm] Node failure detection in PMIPv6
> 
> Hi Folks,

The tunnel keepalive is generic issue. The peer failure can be based
on the ICMP unreachables or can be based on BU failure. In any case,
this is a transport issue and will not fall in the protocol scope.
Like 3775, 3963 or 3344, the NETLMM protocol should not deal with
this. It just uses the a standard tunneling mechanism and is not
defining any new tunneling modes.

Sri