Re: [netlmm] Consensus call: RFC5107 based DHCP message interceptat MAG

[Hidetoshi Yokota <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vijay,

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> On 4/13/09 1:57 AM, "Hidetoshi Yokota" wrote:
> 
>> Hi Rajeev and all,
>>
>> I have a bit of concern about the restriction that the DHCP server has
>> to be collocated with the LMA. Some deployment scenario may have
>> multiple LMAs and one DHCP server in a PMIPv6 domain and there is a
>> situation where the LMA for some mobile node gets changed to another for
>> failure recovery reason. If RFC5107 can allow this configuration and
>> handle this situation well, then it's worth keeping it in the document.
>> A further clarification will be helpful as you pointed out, though.
> 
> LMA relocation while preserving the IP address for the mobile node is
> something that is not supported even in RFC 5213. So can you describe the
> above scenario in more detail?

Here, I'm thinking of a real PMIPv6 deployment not limited to RFC5213.
5213 is the base spec and we all know that we need further extensions
including binding revocations, redirections, etc. The concern I raised
here is that it would be a bit restrictive if the collocation of the LMA
and DHCP server is mandated.

> If this is a failover case where another LMA takes over for a failed LMA,
> and the state is synced between the two, this change should not even be
> visible to the MAG or the MN. All the mobility sessions continue as is.

If the state is synced between the two, yes. But in the collocated case,
a change of LMA means a change of DHCP server. DHCP and PMIP are
basically separate things in protocol and operations although their
states should be in sync. Here, I raised a question that this
collocation is a must or a choice.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi


> Vijay
> 
> 
> 
>