[netext] #20: re-use of the extensions defined in RFC5648

"netext issue tracker" <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org> Mon, 18 March 2013 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E729421F900F for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5PJxNpt+otH7 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0FA21F9011 for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([]:56822 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1UHfko-0004KW-W8; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:29:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: netext issue tracker <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
X-Trac-Project: netext
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:29:54 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/netext/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/20
Message-ID: <058.d124e067c21bab9830410c05f53bb70e@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 20
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: sarikaya@ieee.org, netext@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: [netext] #20: re-use of the extensions defined in RFC5648
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:30:07 -0000

#20: re-use of the extensions defined in RFC5648

 In RFC 5648, BID is used as follows:

 A new Binding Identification
    (BID) number is created for each binding the mobile node wants to
    create and is sent in the Binding Update.  The home agent that
    receives this Binding Update creates a separate binding for each BID.

 In PMIPv6, PBU is sent by MAG and only one PBU is sent by a single MAG.

 The author claims that in PMIPv6 we can associate each of the interfaces
 with a
     binding identifier (BID) and use it to decide how to route a
     given flow.

 However, in PMIPv6, LMA routes the packet to Proxy-CoA, i.e. to the MAG
 not to the MN's specific interface. Proxy-CoA should be in the flow
 binding entry table.

 Therefore the use of BID as copied from RFC 5648 is totally unwarranted in
 the context of PMIPv6 flow mobility.

 Reporter:                   |      Owner:  sarikaya@ieee.org
  sarikaya@ieee.org          |     Status:  new
     Type:  defect           |  Milestone:  milestone1
 Priority:  major            |    Version:  2.0
Component:  pmipv6-flowmob   |   Keywords:  PMIPv6, flow mobility extension
 Severity:  Active WG        |
  Document                   |

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/20>
netext <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/>