Subject: [Monami6] multihoming-pb-statement - HoA selection

From: Keigo Aso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:11:56 +0900

Hello authors,

I am interested in Monami6's work and in favor of the BoF in Paris.
I have one little question on multihoming-pb-statement. Please let me know.

> 6.1.1  Path Selection
>    o  HoA selection
> 
>       In the (*,n,*) cases, multiple HoAs would be available on the MN.
>       The MN and its communicating peers (HA and CNs) must be able to
>       select the appropriate HoA to be used for a particular packet or
>       flow.
> 
>       This choice would be made at the time of a new communication flow
>       set up.  Usual IPv6 mechanisms for source and destination address
>       selection, such as [8] would be used.

Does this mean that Monami6 relies on other mechanism(RFC3484) 
on HoA selection ? or that it will deal with this as one of issues 
which Monami6 should address ?

There seems to be what Monami6 can address on HoA selection
because mobility-related policy may be useful for the selection of 
"HoA"(not the address of the stationary node) by MN and communicating peers.

Regards,
Keigo

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:16:02 +0800

hello,

> I am interested in Monami6's work and in favor of the BoF in Paris.

Thank you, hopefully more people would voice out their favorable
positions to strengthen our case for requesting a BoF.

> which Monami6 should address ?

I would say that Monami6 should consider whether existing mechanism are
adequate.  RFC3484 is written without mobility in consideration, or at
least not as a main consideration.  IMHO, monami6 should seriously look
at the adequacy of existing mechanism (not only RFC3484, but others as
well) in light of mobility with multiple interfaces.

> "HoA"(not the address of the stationary node) by MN and communicating peers.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:16:02 +0800

hello,

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:49:01 -0400

Dear Keigo Aso and Chan-Wah,

>positions to strengthen our case for requesting a BoF.
thank you for your support. I think it's important that people express 
their opinion regarding this BOF.

>well) in light of mobility with multiple interfaces.
Yes, I think the work of Monami6 is to first identify if existing 
solutions can apply, and eventually explore what is missing. Then we can 
decide what is needed.

And I think that HoA selection is an important topic as you mentionned, 
and RFC3484 only gives hints to choose between several routers/addresses 
base on prefix information. We should extend criteria to choose among 
several HoAs / CoAs, and in the case of NEMO, among several MRs.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:49:01 -0400

Nicolas

---

From: Keigo Aso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:51:04 +0900

Hello Nicolas and Chan-Wah,

Thank you for your clear explanation.
Please see my comments inline.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:49:01 -0400

> several HoAs / CoAs, and in the case of NEMO, among several MRs.
I think it is good approach. AFAIK, RFC3484 uses static information, 
and in terms of mobility, it considers only whether the address is HoA or CoA.
Monami6 is appropriate place to extend this.
And Monami6's position on several HoAs(includeing HoA selection) seems to be
one of the things related to the distinction between Monami6 and Shim6.

Regards,
Keigo