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

Hi Romain,

On 2009/05/09, at 10:15, Romain KUNTZ wrote:

> One more comment inline:
>
> On 2009/05/09, at 18:56, Romain KUNTZ wrote:
>> So a MN may include an HOA dest. option in the packets destinated  
>> to the HA instead of reverse-tunneling them. The source address of  
>> the packet would thus be the CoA of the interface from which the  
>> packet is sent. At the Home Agent side (still in section 9.3.1):
>>
>>  [...] the currently registered care-of address MUST be equal to
>>  the source address of the packet.  These tests MUST NOT be done for
>>  packets that contain a Home Address option and a Binding Update.
>>
>> The MCoA draft does not say anything about the behavior the HA  
>> should have in that case.
>
> My mistake, actually it does say something, in section 6.5  
> (Receiving Packets from Mobile Node):
>
>   When a node receives packets with a Home Address destination option
>   from a mobile node, it MUST check that the care-of address that
>   appears in the source address field of the IPv6 header MUST be equal
>   to one of the care-of addresses in the binding cache entry.  If no
>   binding is found, the packets MUST be discarded.  [...]
>
> But my comment on the efficiency (especially at the HA side) still  
> holds, in addition to the other issue related to the RHT2.

I have answered to this.

This situation is only for the traffic between MN and HA. The same  
rule apply to the traffic between MN and CN.
The issue of RHT2 is not MCoA matter. It is solved by flow binding.

thanks
ryuji

>
>
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Romain KUNTZ
> kuntz@lsiit.u-strasbg.fr
> LSIIT - Networks and Protocols Team
> http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/~kuntz/
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext