Hi Heikki, I guess Jari wants us to continue this point on the int-area list so I'll respond to both. See below.
> Hesham Soliman wrote: > > Regardless of the approach, the solution we had in mind > would transfer flow > > descriptions and binding information between the flow in > question and one or > > more of the mobile node's addresses. The sender of this > information is the > > mobile node. The receiver is either a correspondent node or another > > intermediate node. If we use the terms HA/MAP then we're > implying the use of > > MIPv6. So I'll stick to generic language. > > ==> I think that the solution you describe in your draft for flow > bindings might be enough for MIPv6 but it is not sufficient > for instance > in NEMO case (or other non MIPv6 intermediate node case). In > the flow > binding draft it is mandatory for the intermediate node to > be able to > receive a BU message, right? > > In NEMO the MNN cannot send a BU message to the MR so the > MNN. Because > of this you would need to write another draft (which would > resemble I > think the one or both of the alternative solutions). Or > change the NEMO > so the MNN can send BU to the MR? => No no no :). You've skipped a lot of steps here. First of all, the current solution does support nemo because the signalling can be sent from the MR to the HA/MAP. As you probably know nemo does not allow the MR to send BUs to a CN, so this fully supports nemo. Now, your second point is about an MNN sending a BU. First, lets be clear that the MNN does not send BUs to the MR in any spec defined today, so the BU would have to be sent from the MNN to a CN/HA/MAP. I don't see why this can't be done in draft-soliman. If you mean that the MNN (more likely a VMN) needs to know what properties correspond to which prefix advertised by the MR then this goes back to a separate issue of how the MR informs MNNs of the properties associated with advertised prefixes. This issue was raised many years ago (when nemo was a bof) and was recently referred to by Thierry in his response to a query about this point. Thierry's response was on this thread so feel free to take a look. So the bottom line is the MIPv6 solution does support this case. > > Just as an example. In NEMO the MNN might have a need to set the > preferred routes for it's traffic into the MR. For instance, > think of a > case where the MNN is a laptop and the user uses a cellular > phone with > multiple interfaces as a MR. In this scenario the user most > certainly > would expect some control over the application flows from the laptop > trough the phone. => Of course, so if it gets the prefixes from the MR and associated properties with each one it can make that choice. I don't see the relationship between this issue and the current discussion on this thread. Hesham _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
