Re: [MEXT] De-resgistering bindings in MCoA draft

Hi Hesham

We slightly changed the semantics of MIP6, because both HoA and BID is
now used as a key to search/manage binding cache/binding update list.

I don't see any issues assigning individual lifetime to BID bindings  
for the same HoA,
if there is reason (i.e. no bulk registration).

regards,
ryuji

On 2008/12/17, at 16:12, Hesham Soliman wrote:

>
>> When MN does not use the bulk registration, each binding registering
>> with BID is treated as a regular binding. Each binding will have
>> individual lifetime. It is not the operation of BID removal, but of  
>> a binding
>> removal.
>
> => It's the same thing, you won't remove a BID and keep the binding.
>
>> Removing a binding with zero lifetime is consisitent with MIP6.
>
> => Yes but that's not the issue, the issue here is having multiple  
> bindings
> for the same home address that have different lifetimes.
>
> Hesham
>
>>
>> ryuji
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:43:33 +1100,
>> Hesham Soliman wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a comment on this aspect of the spec. The removal of BIDs  
>>> based on
>>> zero lifetime is completely inconsistent with the processing of  
>>> the BU in
>>> MIPv6. The lifetime should be for the entire binding cache for the  
>>> home
>>> address. BIDs should be removed by explicitly by requesting a  
>>> removal
>>> operation in the BID fields (or by simply excluding them from the  
>>> new BU),
>>> not by giving them separate lifetimes. I don't see any reason for
>>> complicating things this way. This is not how a binding update is  
>>> supposed
>>> to work. The way it works is that one BU replaces the previous one.
>>>
>>> Hesham
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MEXT mailing list
>>> MEXT@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
>

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