RE: [Monami6] MCoA vs Flow Bindings: Solvingsame problem?

["Soliman, Hesham" <[e-mail]>]

 > According to section "6.2.  Receiving Binding Update" of
 > draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-05, it is allowed to have such
 > a BC:
 > HoA1 -> CoA1, BID=1
 > HoA1 -> CoA2, BID=2
 > HoA1 -> CoA2, BID=3

=> I'm not sure how this helps in the flow binding case. I think there is a simple point and people seem to be talking past it: In the flow binding case we are binding *flows* therefore we need to identify *flows* therefore we have a flow id in the flow id option; exactly where it belongs. The MCoA draft binds *addresses* to each other, therefore their bindings identify *addresses* and that's what the BID does. 
In other words we bind flows to a CoA. In doing that, we can't help but bind the CoA to the HoA because that's the nature of the BU. But we don't need a BID on the address level, because we don't care about that. The MCoA draft binds CoAs to HoAs. How are you suggesting we use that? And please be specific: what is the use of the BID in the BU sent in the flow binding draft? 

Hesham

 > 
 > > While in the flow binding draft, we can have the same CoA 
 > to appear  
 > > in several bindings, like this:
 > > HoA1 -> CoA1, FID=1, default
 > > HoA1 -> CoA2, FID=2, port 22
 > > HoA1 -> CoA2, FID=3, port 443
 > > 
 > 
 > [snip]
 > 
 > Regards,
 > Gabor
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Monami6 mailing list
 > [e-mail]
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
 > 

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