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

[Romain KUNTZ <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ryuji,

On 2009/05/11, at 23:01, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
>> 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.

Right, and I was especially concerned about the HA because it may have  
more MN to handle than a CN. I thought it could be a problem if there  
are lots of MNs-HA communications (but on the other hand, I can't  
think of an use-case where MN-HA communications would be frequent).

If you think it would not cause possible performance issues, I'll  
trust you on that.


> The issue of RHT2 is not MCoA matter. It is solved by flow binding.

Well, yes it could be solved by flow binding. I had in mind a case  
where only MCoA would be used. But I was already told here that  
everything related to flow distribution should be handled by some flow  
filtering mechanism, and not MCoA itself only, so I'll stop arguing on  
that.

Cheers,
romain