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

From: "netext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:29:54 -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:  [email-masked]
  [email-masked]          |     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/>