Re: [MEXT] IPv4 home address option in DSMIP

Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> Sat, 17 January 2009 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: nemo-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430203A69D9; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:40:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475E93A69D9 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:40:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.535
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id khcLDQD5n6j5 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-2.servers.netregistry.net (smtp.netregistry.net [202.124.241.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5243A6947 for <mext@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [124.190.106.160] (helo=[192.168.0.187]) by smtp-2.servers.netregistry.net protocol: esmtpa (Exim 4.63 #1 (Debian)) id 1LOCLl-0002PA-Ea; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:40:37 +1100
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.15.0.081119
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:40:33 +1100
From: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
To: Shi Xiaoyan <shi_xyan@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <C5983911.B200%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Thread-Topic: IPv4 home address option in DSMIP
Thread-Index: Acl4e/1gnce/8wg+TyC7IjHZuRMuKQANY/Ok
In-Reply-To: <006001c9787b$fdd0cd40$bd946f0a@china.huawei.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] IPv4 home address option in DSMIP
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org



On 17/01/09 7:17 PM, "Shi Xiaoyan" <shi_xyan@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Hesham,
>  
> Section 5.4.2
>  
>    When sending a binding update from a visited network that supports
>    IPv6, the mobile node MUST follow the rules specified in [RFC3775].
>    In addition, if the mobile node has an IPv4 home address or needs
>    one, it MUST include the IPv4 home address option in the mobility
>    header.  
>  
> Does the IPv4 home address option must be include in Binding Update even if
> BU is send for extend binding lifetime?

=> Yes. 

> I think it is redundant since only IPv6 HoA is the key for BCE lookup. In
> maillist, I find some disscussion mails about this quesion, but I can't find
> the reason why all BU must include IPv4 home address option.

=> Two reasons:
1. This is how a BU works, all options need to be included in order for a
binding to be refreshed
2. The only way the MN can delete the IPv4 binding is to not include it in
the BU. 

Hesham

>  
> 
> Regards,
> Xiaoyan


_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext