Subject: [Monami6] Comments on draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-04

From: Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:25:22 +0900

Hello,

I have few more comments on the issues described in
draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-04

> 6.1.1  Path Selection o  HoA selection
> 
> In the (*,n,*) cases, multiple HoAs would be available on the MN. The
>  MN and its communicating peers (HA and CNs) must be able to select 
> the appropriate HoA to be used for a particular packet or flow.
> 
> This choice would be made at the time of a new communication flow set
>  up.  Usual IPv6 mechanisms for source and destination address 
> selection, such as [8] would be used.

[8] refers to RFC3484 (Default Address Selection for IPv6). This
document defines 8 rules to select a source address. However, it says
that "If the eight rules fail to choose a single address, some
unspecified tie-breaker should be used". I believe this case can happen
in HoA selection on MIP6 node, so defining some more rules for HoA
selection could be useful.

> 6.2.3  Simultaneous location in home and foreign networks

In this section, maybe you can add that RFC3484 defines some rules in
that case. As you can read in section  5:

> Rule 4:  Prefer home addresses. If SA is simultaneously a home 
> address and care-of address and SB is not, then prefer SA. Similarly,
>  if SB is simultaneously a home address and care-of address and SA is
>  not, then prefer SB. If SA is just a home address and SB is just a 
> care-of address, then prefer SA.  Similarly, if SB is just a home 
> address and SA is just a care-of address, then prefer SB.

Regards,

Romain

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:24:54 +0900

One reaction below - may have an impact on our charter:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:25:22 +0900
Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]> wrote:
> unspecified tie-breaker should be used". I believe this case can
> happen in HoA selection on MIP6 node, so defining some more rules for
> HoA selection could be useful.

This is an interesting comment. So, that would mean that this is issue
is not a generic one, after all, and that we should probably list
"defining rules for HoA selection" as a WG item.

Comments ?

> >  if SB is simultaneously a home address and care-of address and SA
> >  is not, then prefer SB. If SA is just a home address and SB is just
> >  a 

Thierry

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:11:06 -0400

>"defining rules for HoA selection" as a WG item.
Right now I fail to see what rule we could define, but definitly I think 
that it would be useful to think about address selection in the MIPv6 
case. RFC3484 gives only basic rules, that we can extend for a MIP6 node 
having several HoAs/CoAs

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:11:06 -0400

Nicolas