Subject: [netlmm] HoTI messages in PMIPv6 draft and consequences for future works on RO

From: "Jean-Michel Combes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:22:59 +0200

Hi,

as I mentioned this morning, actually, the PMIPv6 draft mentions that
"The local mobility anchors SHOULD drop all HoTI messages received for
a home address that has corresponding Binding Cache entry with the
proxy registration flag set" (p20, section 5.9).

So, future works on RO should take account about this requirement.

BTW, what are the reasons of such a requirement?

Thanks.

Best regards.

JMC.

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

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:31:24 -0700

Hi Jean-Michel,

The base doc does not support RO and hence that's the recommendation.
When it receives a HoTI message, the best way to deal with it is to
drop it. Clearly, the RO protocol as defined in 3775, will not work for
PMIP6. Future work/specs will modify this behaviour and specify the
LMA action.

Sri 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Michel Combes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [netlmm] HoTI messages in PMIPv6 draft and 
> consequences for futureworks on RO
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: "Jean-Michel Combes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:06:33 +0200

Hi again,

> PMIP6. Future work/specs will modify this behaviour and specify the

OK.
BTW, that impacts too the MIPv6 RO in the case the PMIPv6 LMA and the
MIPv6 HA are co-located (i.e. scenario C in
draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions).

Best regards.

JMC.

---

From: qinxia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:27:30 +0800

Hello all,

          Before PMIP RO procedure is researched well, IMHO, we should not refuse any
methods in a hurry. At present, we should welcome any methods, any solution on PMIP
RO, and then we compare them and select the most reasonable one.
Especially, more than one scenario exist in PMIP RO, there must be several methods.
So, I suggest, we begin to discuss the scenarios before to make any decision on
solution.

BR
Alice

> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:23 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> as I mentioned this morning, actually, the PMIPv6 draft 
> mentions that "The local mobility anchors SHOULD drop all 
> HoTI messages received for a home address that has 
> corresponding Binding Cache entry with the proxy registration 
> flag set" (p20, section 5.9).
>