Re: [netlmm] Retransmitting a PBU when HI=1 and MN LL ID is non-zero (draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-18)

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Tue, 29 July 2008 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <netlmm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netlmm-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-netlmm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F21A128C0EE; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: netlmm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netlmm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673953A6A73 for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 tUlYk6ftVWJa for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7323A6923 for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.31,272,1215388800"; d="scan'208";a="39111440"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2008 11:59:06 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6TBx5Lp020693; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:59:05 -0700
Received: from irp-view13.cisco.com (irp-view13.cisco.com [171.70.120.60]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6TBx5EQ021366; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:59:05 GMT
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:59:05 -0700
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Tero Kauppinen <tero.kauppinen@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <D34CB2979BAB35448AB0A5FBAC56778D044D05FF@esealmw114.eemea.ericsson.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0807290453470.18750@irp-view13.cisco.com>
References: <D34CB2979BAB35448AB0A5FBAC56778D04476745@esealmw114.eemea.ericsson.se> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0807240756460.23483@irp-view13.cisco.com> <D34CB2979BAB35448AB0A5FBAC56778D044D05FF@esealmw114.eemea.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1154; t=1217332745; x=1218196745; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; z=From:=20Sri=20Gundavelli=20<sgundave@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[netlmm]=20Retransmitting=20a=20PBU=20w hen=20HI=3D1=20and=20MN=20LL=20ID=20is=20non-zero=0A=20(draf t-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-18) |Sender:=20; bh=bndj/87k3OfAm1sulTWLdWsmUDZfNaQ7eGMFyct4c8U=; b=Zi9I8GW53YqWlxiRV9PTta3n2giwNH4NTTAdqRnjrxYgyzQaeAKKu5qama 0GhYzXXjXHWi/0ArzdH0d90iAcF8L+k7VzNfdMzWXmT36t7TYDntZYF5I8VO lpg7xVSbTs;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=sgundave@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Cc: netlmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Retransmitting a PBU when HI=1 and MN LL ID is non-zero (draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-18)
X-BeenThere: netlmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETLMM working group discussion list <netlmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/netlmm>
List-Post: <mailto:netlmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: netlmm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: netlmm-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Tero,


On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Tero Kauppinen wrote:

> Hello
>
>> The MAG cannot set HI=5 (Re-Reg), we clearly require all the
>> session parameters in re-reg or de-reg messages. In this
>> case, the MAG would not even know the HNP as it never
>> received the PBA.
>
> If I blindly follow the rules written in Chapters 5.3. and 5.4., I end
> up in the situation I described earlier -> handover (rules 5.4.1.2 1 and
> 2). There is no explicit requirement (following the rules in the
> specified order) that if HI=5, the PBU must include all the session
> parameters or at least none that I could fine.
>
> I agree, it's not big of a deal; the binding in LMA will be updated

Any case, we clarified this one line just before publication and
so this will be clear now. Either way, the session will be updated 
correctly.

Thanks
Sri


> properly if the decision is either 'Binding Lifetime Extension- No
> handoff' or 'Binding Lifetime Extension - After handoff'. Moreover,
> tunnel and route setup functions can easily see that such routes and
> tunnel already exist.




>
> Regz,
> Tero
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sri
>
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm