Re: [MEXT] Some questions on draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm

[Romain KUNTZ <[e-mail]>]

Hello Behcet,

On Aug 12, 2011, at 15:05, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>> In section 5 you are stating "This protocol removes the need for route 
>> optimization.  Correspondent nodes do not need to maintain a binding cache of 
>> bindings for other  nodes.", so this does not sound coherent with the MN 
>> behavior exposed above. 
>> 
> 
> 
> RFC 6275 says destination option is used in a packet
>    sent by a mobile node while away from home, to inform the recipient
>    of the mobile node's home address.
> So we need it. I will clarify no route optimization statement, which means that there is no need 
> 
>  1 Home Test Init
> 
>       2  Care-of Test Init
> 
>       3  Home Test
> 
>       4  Care-of Test
> message exchanges.

If I remember correctly, RFC6275 requires the CN to have a binding cache entry to process destination options from the MN, which requires the return routability procedure. 

romain