IETF Logo Mail Archive

[MEXT] IPv4 home address option in DSMIP

Shi Xiaoyan <shi_xyan@huawei.com> Sat, 17 January 2009 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mip6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mip6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B437C28C10E; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:17:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E5E428C10E for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:17:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.714
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYQdylPxbq5Z for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:17:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C593428C0DC for <mext@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:17:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KDL004S4WCLB7@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for mext@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:17:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.12]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KDL005YVWCL5R@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for mext@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:17:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from s68128b ([10.111.148.189]) by szxml05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KDL0004SWCK3T@szxml05-in.huawei.com> for mext@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:17:09 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:17:08 +0800
From: Shi Xiaoyan <shi_xyan@huawei.com>
To: 'Hesham Soliman' <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Message-id: <006001c9787b$fdd0cd40$bd946f0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-index: Acl4e/1gnce/8wg+TyC7IjHZuRMuKQ==
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: [MEXT] IPv4 home address option in DSMIP
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1594126813=="
Sender: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Hesham,
 
Section 5.4.2
 
   When sending a binding update from a visited network that supports
   IPv6, the mobile node MUST follow the rules specified in [RFC3775].
   In addition, if the mobile node has an IPv4 home address or needs
   one, it MUST include the IPv4 home address option in the mobility
   header.  
 
Does the IPv4 home address option must be include in Binding Update even if
BU is send for extend binding lifetime?
I think it is redundant since only IPv6 HoA is the key for BCE lookup. In
maillist, I find some disscussion mails about this quesion, but I can't find
the reason why all BU must include IPv4 home address option. 
 

Regards,
Xiaoyan

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email