Subject: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Section 5.1

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 16:31:53 -0500

Hi Carlos,

Section 5.1 is entitled Multiple Care-of Address Registration. In
PMIPv6 there is no care-address so there can not be care-of address
registration, right?

In Figure 7, you have BID. This is adopted from RFC 5648.

Can we really adopt BID in PMIPv6? Please refer to Section 3 in
draft-sarikaya-netext-flowmob-ext-00, unfortunately BID loses its
meaning in PMIPv6.

It seems to me that this section needs to be completely rewritten.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 09:28:56 +0200

Hi Behcet,

> PMIPv6 there is no care-address so there can not be care-of address

Would "Multiple Proxy Care-of Address Registration" suit you?

> draft-sarikaya-netext-flowmob-ext-00, unfortunately BID loses its

I don't quite follow this. We are proposing to reuse some mechanisms (as
RFC 5648) to avoid redoing the whole thing.

Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano  http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:20:44 -0500

Hi Carlos,

My comments below.

Regards,

Behcet

> Would "Multiple Proxy Care-of Address Registration" suit you?

Yes, it would be better. Also you need to distinguish home and visited
link registrations from simultaneously connected interfaces, similar
to RFC 5648. Feel free to take a look at
draft-sarikaya-netext-flowmob-ext-00. When you do this, it will be
easier for a MAG to know the interface of MN it serves is a home link
or visited link.

Base PMIPv6 needs to be modified to enable multiple proxy care-of
address registrations, i.e. binding cache modifications are needed.

> RFC 5648) to avoid redoing the whole thing.

Well, not everything in RFC 5648 applies to PMIPv6. BID does not apply.
So you need to reuse whatever applies or needed.

Behcet

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:32:59 +0200

Hi Behcet,

> address registrations, i.e. binding cache modifications are needed.

This is already mentioned in the draft. I've tried to make it more clear
in the next revision.

> So you need to reuse whatever applies or needed.

Why BID does not apply? If the BC is extended to support multiple
registrations, you need an identifier for each of them. The BID is used
for that.

Thanks,

Carlos