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

> 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