Subject: RE: [Mip6] Review Comments and Questions on draft-irtf-mobopts-ro -enhancemen ts-00.txt

From: Narayanan Vidya-CVN065 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:17:30 -0500

Hi Wassim,
Yes, this seems to be the case. I did not see this point brought out in draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements. It might be good to add some text about this in the draft. 

Regards,
Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 8:57 AM
> To: Narayanan Vidya-CVN065
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Mip6] Review Comments and Questions on 
> draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancemen ts-00.txt
> 
> 
> Hello Vidya,
> 
> On 26-May-05, at 11:25 PM, Narayanan Vidya-CVN065 wrote:
> 
> > 3. One of the situations in which RO can be useful is when the RO
> > solution allows the MN and CN to continue communication during a  
> > period of HA unavailability (failure, for e.g.). The current RR  
> > solution does not achieve this, due to the necessity for short  
> > lifetimes and hence the need for home address tests via the HA  
> > every so often. It may be worthwhile adding this to the design  
> > goals for the solution.
> 
> => In OMIPv6, you need to do only *one* HoA test at the beginning.  
> The shared secret, i.e., SKbm, lifetime is set to 24 hours so that  
> you don't need to
> exchange HoTI/HoT messages during this period.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wassim H.
> 

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6