Re: [Monami6] Host with multiple addresses of the same prefix

[Gábor Fekete <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thierry,

Please, see the inlines too!

I checked the drafts you pointed me at.
With regards to draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-05, I concentrated
when a MR or a MNN is considered multihomed.
So, I did not consider the "definition" of multihomed NEMOs in Section 1.
I found the followings.

Section 2:
  "... One thing the reader has to keep
   in mind is that in each of the following 8 cases, the MR may be
   multihomed if either (i) multiple prefixes are available (on the home
   link, or on the visited link), or (ii) the MR is equipped with
   multiple interfaces. ..."
So, basically the same as in
draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario.

Section 2.1:
  "o  The MR has multiple interfaces and thus its has multiple CoAs;

   o  Multiple global prefixes are available on the visited link, and
      thus it has multiple CoAs; or

   o  Multiple global prefixes are available on the home link, and thus
      the MR has more than one path to reach the home agent."
Aren't these 3 points meant to specify when a MR is multihomed?
If not then I think it should. But then it should be synchronized with
the above quoted part of Section 2.

Section 2.1 and others with having a single MNP:
  "Regarding MNNs, they are (usually) not multihomed since they would
   configure a single global address from the single MNP available on
   the link they are attached to."
It is not clear what "usually" means. Does it mean that they can be
multihomed even if they have a single MNP? Does it mean an MNN is
multihomed only if it has multiple interfaces, provided there is a single
MNP? What about saying:
"Regarding MNNs, they may or may not be multihomed. See [X] for the
definition of a multihomed node."

I think that MR multihoming is/should be the same as host multihoming.
Isn't it so?
And host/NEMO multihoming should be defined at one single place and clearly.

With regards to draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-00, it does not mention
the "multiple CoAs, single prefix, single interface" case either.

Therefore, my initial question is still open.
But now I must rephrase it:

Should a host with multiple addresses with the same prefix on its single
interface be considered as multihomed?

On Friday 05 May 2006 11:45, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> Dear Gabor,
>
> Would you also take a look at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-00.tx
>t (for the MIPv6 case)
> and
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-05.t
>xt (for the NEMO case)
>
> and check if that answers your concerns ?
> draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario should be taken at a
> much higer level whereas technical specificities are more (or less ?)
> explained in the other 2 drafts.

Which of my concerns/questions do you refer to as technical specific?
If the definition of multihoming then I must disagree.
If the multiplecoa question, then I agree, but then I don't understand
the point of your last sentence :)

Regards,
Gabor

>
> Thierry.
>
> > > 2. Does it make sense?
> > > 3. draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-00.txt draft
> > > should
> > >    mention it at least with one sentence in Section 2.
> > > 4. How does draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-05.txt handle this case
> > >    when the MN wants to register multiple bindings with its HoA?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Gabor
> > >

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6