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

[Ken Nagami <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hesham,

At 22:08 06/06/29, Soliman, Hesham wrote:

>  > 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?

The MCoA draft has the BID between a CoA and a flowID as you mentioned.
One advantage of the MCoA draft is as follow.
Many flowIDs bind to one CoA as following figure.
When the CoA1 changes to other CoA, in the MCoA case, only one 
re-binding between CoA and BID is needed.
But in flow binding case, many re-binding between CoA and FlowID is needed.


MCoA :
         CoA1 <-> BID1 <-> FlowID1
                       <-> FlowID2
                            ....

FlowBinding:
         CoA1 <----------> FlowID1
                           FlowID2
                            ....

Ken Nagami 




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