Subject: Re: [netlmm] Today's discussion about multihomed MNs

From: Ashutosh Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:29:16 -0400

As discussed during the base draft specification, I think this is a 
general problem with multi-homed case when the mobile uses a 
make-before-break scenario during handover between two MAGs, as the 
mobile may end up having two same IP addresses on the mobile's two 
interfaces for a while.
	However, in case of PMIP-PMIP handover, both MAG1 and MAG2 having the 
ownership MN's binding may not be an issue, as PBU through MAG2 will 
effectively annul the binding at MAG1, as the LMA will be updated and 
will forward the traffic to MAG2 destined for interface 2 instead of 
forwarding the data traffic destined for interface 1 via MAG1 before the 
handover.

Thanks
Ashutosh

Hesham Soliman wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> I didn't get a chance to explain this at the mic so here's a followup.
> 
> One of the problems I see with using the home prefix in NETLMM (i.e.
> scenario C in the 
> PMIP-MIP interaction draft) is the case where the MN is multihomed. If you
> have to allocate the same prefix in the local domain (i.e. the permanent
> home prefix) then we end up with a problem where MAG1 and MAG2 both want to
> own the MN's binding. This is obviously a broken scenario. I don't know how
> this can be solved.
> 
> Hesham
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

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

---

From: "Hesham Soliman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:00:42 +1000

> mobile may end up having two same IP addresses on the mobile's two 

=> I don't think that happens in a make-before-break case that I've seen. 
Please explain how this happens in your scenario. Also note that I wasn't
talking about a handover, this node can be still for hours. 

Hesham