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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Romain,


> 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. 
> 

As it says in RFC 6275 the destination option is needed to inform the recipient
of the mobile node's home address


This is the functionality that is needed for dmm. There is no need for return routability procedure.
That means dmm can not work with an unmodified CN, which is the most important impact.

Regards,

Behcet