Re: [MEXT] draft-arkko-mext-rfc3775-altcoa-check-00.txt

Hi,

Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:
> Hi, Jari / All. 
> 
> Sorry for delayed response. I also think there is an use case for
> alt-CoA in PMIPv6 context. 
> So, I support the idea of keeping this in current MIPv6 spec. 
>  
==> In PMIP case there might be use for Alt. CoA option (at least when
using HW that has separated CPs and UPs). The use of Alt. CoA option is
also described in the PMIPV6 draft. However, PMIPv6 uses Proxy Binding
Updates and Acknowledgments so the new checking in the new draft doesn't
need to be applied for PMIPv6, rigtht? I mean the draft says that "When
an Alternate Care-of Address option is present in a Binding Update
message, perform the following additional test:".

If this new check is also needed for the PMIPv6, then I think PMIPv6
requires a new option to carry the CoA used for signaling (address of
the CP) inside the ESP protected part of the message. Then the Alt. CoA
option can be used to carry the address for the PMIPv6 tunnel endpoint
(address of the UP). Never the less, I think that the CP needs to know
the address of the UP to add it into the Alt. CoA option, so I guess it
would be doable to use the same UP address also for signaling (as a
source address of the PBU)...

BR,

Heikki
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext