IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Monami6] MCoA vs Flow Bindings: Solving same problem?

Gábor Fekete <feketgai@index.hu> Thu, 29 June 2006 11:08 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvuNp-00068n-HV; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 07:08:29 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvuNn-00068i-Qz for monami6@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 07:08:27 -0400
Received: from posti5.jyu.fi ([130.234.4.34]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvuNj-0007ru-Bw for monami6@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 07:08:27 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by posti5.jyu.fi (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5TB8M6i030373 for <monami6@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:08:22 +0300
Received: from posti5.jyu.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (posti5.jyu.fi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30319-04 for <monami6@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:08:20 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from b19c.mylly.jyu.fi (b19c.mylly.jyu.fi [130.234.196.146]) by posti5.jyu.fi (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5TB8J3S030365 for <monami6@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:08:20 +0300
From: Gábor Fekete <feketgai@index.hu>
To: Monami6 WG <monami6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Monami6] MCoA vs Flow Bindings: Solving same problem?
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:02:21 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3
References: <7EB20EA0938B4D42A2D82689365C9B7A04F96E@NAEX14.na.qualcomm.com> <200606221131.03615.feketgai@index.hu> <92125DB8-9D1E-449E-8C6E-DC30425342AD@enst-bretagne.fr>
In-Reply-To: <92125DB8-9D1E-449E-8C6E-DC30425342AD@enst-bretagne.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200606291402.21377.feketgai@index.hu>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cc.jyu.fi
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
X-BeenThere: monami6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Monami6 WG <monami6@ietf.org>
List-Id: Monami6 WG <monami6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6>, <mailto:monami6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/monami6>
List-Post: <mailto:monami6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:monami6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6>, <mailto:monami6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: monami6-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Nicolas,

On Thursday 22 June 2006 12:04, Nicolas Montavont wrote:

[snip]

> 
> Maybe, but the problem we had with using MCoA, was that a single CoA  
> can only be registered once in the BC/BUL. It means, in MCoA, that  
> you can have:
> HoA1 -> CoA1, BID=1
> HoA1 -> CoA2, BID=2
> 

Do you say that you still have this problem with MCoA?
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

> 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
Monami6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email