Re: [MEXT] Comments on draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-13

[[e-mail] (Arnaud Ebalard)]

Hi Ryuji,

Ryuji Wakikawa <[e-mail]> writes:

>>> Considering the example you give, maybe you have some comment (in the
>>> context of MCoA) on the current inability for a MN that has a binding
>>> with a CN  to tell that CN that it should route some flows to the HoA
>>> of the MN instead of sending those to the CoA.
>>
>> Without my WG chair hat: Since route optimization is in my view a
>> central piece of the MIPv6 design, I would consider that inability
>> as a
>> flaw.
>
> This isn't a flow.
>
> In Mobile IPv6, when MN registers its binding to CN, MN cannot tell
> some flow is sent without RO.

That's correct but MIPv6 was restricted to a single binding and route
for communications bewteen MN-HA and MN-CN. Because MCoA removes that
restriction, I don't see your point about citing a missing feature of
MIPv6 as an argument not to have it in MCoA. IMHO, MCoA is the place
where all the possible destination should be handled, including the
HoA.

> It is same here in MCoA. For the binding management, we don't offer
> any solution for this.

>From my perspective, MCoA *is* about binding management.

> This is more like flow handling matter which is out of scope in the
> MCoA.

The thing is that at the moment the MCoA draft is the one providing
information about the address to which the traffic is expected to go
(via the content of the BID). If you cannot express the direction is the
HoA with what is in the draft, next documents will have to modify the
semantic of the BID, instead of simply use it. Or do I fail to
understand how you want that to be handled?

> You can use flow binding spec to direct some of flow to bypass the RO.

See above.

Cheers,

a+