Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Issue 12: Inclusion of MN's nCoA in CTAR or CTD

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:03:19 +0300

Hi James,

> Issue 12 questions including the MN's nCoA in CTAR or CTD. If MN has not yet
> completed DAD, then the address is not confirmed and it may not be if there
> is a conflict (note however that exactly how to quickly confirm a nCoA is
> currently a topic of heavy discussion on the MIP list, RFC 2462 DAD may not
> be done). There seems to be an assumption built in that predictive handover
> is occuring, and the MN will know its CoA prior to moving to the new link
> or, if not predictive, then immediately on coming on link.
> 
> Was this intended as an identifier for the MN on the new link? If so,
> wouldn't a more stable identifier be the MN's link layer address?
> 
> And what is the purpoe of old CoA?

Thinking about this a bit more - this is a tricky issue.  link layer address
may not be good, in the case of vertical handovers.  Also, what to do with
IPv4 & possibly NATed addresses?

Do we need to have a stable Session ID of some sort that is used?

John

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:32:13 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:03 AM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Issue 12: Inclusion of MN's nCoA in CTAR or CTD

> IPv4 & possibly NATed addresses?

Good point.

> Do we need to have a stable Session ID of some sort that is used?

No, we want to minimize state in the network.

I suppose sticking with the IP addresses is probably the only possible
solution at this point. In some cases (viz IPv6 reactive handover) there may
be no new CoA yet. Something like HIP would certainly help here, but we
can't depend on having it at this point.

            jak