Subject: [MEXT] Question about draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-10.txt

From: "Francisco J. Galera Cuesta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:14:30 +0100

Hello all,

I have a doubt in draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-10.txt, but also 
related to draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-05 and 
draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-03.txt

I'm considering a scenario such as the one specified in subsection 5.3. 
((1,n): 1 HoA, n CoAs) of draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-05: My 
scenario consists on a multihoming mobile node with several interfaces 
of multiple types of access technologies. The node configures one CoA in 
each interface, but it only has one HoA. The node may be moving and 
changing its CoAs, but it needs ubiquitous access to the Internet, 
maintaining communications when it is moving out of the coverage area of 
a specific technology.

My doubt is how a HoA can be binded to several interfaces? This issue is 
commented in subsection 6.3.3 (Binding HoA to interface) of 
draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-05,  but it is no clear for me. Is not 
there a contradiction with RFC 2373 (IP Version 6 Addressing 
Architecture) and especially with the following paragraph?

"IPv6 addresses of all types are assigned to interfaces, not nodes.
An IPv6 unicast address refers to a single interface. Since each
 interface belongs to a single node, any of that node's interfaces'
 unicast addresses may be used as an identifier for the node."

Thanks in advance!

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
Francisco J. Galera Cuesta
Dpto. Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones
Facultad de Informática
Universidad de Murcia
30100 Murcia (Spain)
Tlf: +34 968 364644
----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:42:49 +0900

Hi Francisco, 

In some implementation, HoA is assigned to a virtual "interface" and
CoAs can be assigned to physical interfaces.
It depends on implementations. I don't think we break the RFC2373.

thanks,
ryuji

At Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:14:30 +0100,

---

From: "Pedro M. Ruiz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:09:18 +0100

Hi Ryuji,

This idea of the virtual interface sounds very good to me. I think the 
single HoA multiple CoA's approach is interesting in many scenarios. Do 
you have a pointer to any of those implementations?

Thanks,

--Pedro

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro M. Ruiz, Ph.D, MIEEE, MACM.      E-mail: [email-masked]
Fac. Informatica, Univ. of Murcia      Phone:  +34968364335
Campus de Espinardo s/n                Fax:    +34968364151
E-30100, Espinardo, Murcia             http://ants.dif.um.es/~pedrom/
SPAIN
---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:51:38 +0900

Hi Pedro,

AFAIK, LINUX and BSD implementations use the approach of virtual  
interface.
When a MN is away from home, HoA is assigned to a virtual interface  
and CoA(s) is assigned to physical interface(s).

http://www.linux-ipv6.org/
http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20041211/

BSD-based implementation is not actively developed these days.

thanks
ryuji

On 2008/11/08, at 19:09, Pedro M. Ruiz wrote:

> Hi Ryuji,
>
> This idea of the virtual interface sounds very good to me. I think  
> the single HoA multiple CoA's approach is interesting in many  
> scenarios. Do you have a pointer to any of those implementations?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Pedro
>
> Ryuji Wakikawa escribió:
>> Hi Francisco,
>>> related to draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-05 and draft-ietf- 
>>> monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-03.txt
>>>
>>> I'm considering a scenario such as the one specified in subsection  
>>> 5.3. ((1,n): 1 HoA, n CoAs) of draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6- 
>>> analysis-05: My scenario consists on a multihoming mobile node  
>>> with several interfaces of multiple types of access technologies.  
>>> The node configures one CoA in each interface, but it only has one  
>>> HoA. The node may be moving and changing its CoAs, but it needs  
>>> ubiquitous access to the Internet, maintaining communications when  
>>> it is moving out of the coverage area of a specific technology.
>>>
>>> My doubt is how a HoA can be binded to several interfaces? This  
>>> issue is commented in subsection 6.3.3 (Binding HoA to interface)  
>>> of draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-05,  but it is no clear for  
>>> me. Is not there a contradiction with RFC 2373 (IP Version 6  
>>> Addressing Architecture) and especially with the following  
>>> paragraph?
>>>