Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Mipv6 issue #174: Infinite lifetime

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:36:02 +0200

Glenn Morrow wrote:
> It seems that manual intervention would be required to clean up the 
> infinity case whereas no infinity would eventually clean up on its own.

Yes. Remember though that Infinity can only be used for the home
registrations, not correspondent registrations.

Anyways, I'm fine with either removing the value or keeping it...

Jari

---

From: "Ed Remmell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 08:50:17 -0700

Jari -

IMHO just keep it the way it is now, that way you don't need to make any
more changes to the draft.

A HA implementation can always just not implement the infinite lifetime, and
can instead return a smaller lifetime to the MN. There may be some scenarios
in which having an infinite lifetime for the binding makes sense. It can be
dangerous to use longer lifetimes with bindings, and you can have almost the
same trouble with a binding that expires in 3 days as you would with one
with an infinite lifetime... i.e. both cases seem to require
administrative/manual intervention to fix, if the MN (and/or some inter-HA
protocol TBD) can't resolve the problem on its own.

Thanks.
- Ed Remmell
Elmic Systems, USA
http://www.elmic.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:36 AM
> To: Glenn Morrow; Mobile IPv6 mailling list
> Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Mipv6 issue #174: Infinite lifetime
>
>
> Glenn Morrow wrote: