Subject: [Monami6] returning home issue in MCoA

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:50:39 +0200

Dear all,

At the last IETF, the authors of draft-ietf-monami6- 
multiplecoa-03.txt introduced the H flag in order to support MN's  
simultaneous use of  home and foreign links.
However, it requires the certain modification to the home agent,  
which is NO NDP running on the home link.
Some people made comments that this may delay the document process.

As Ryuji Wakikawa promised in the previous meeting, Ryuji wants to go  
back to the original question.
Ryuji asked the same question before, but he didn't get enough  
feedback from WG. This is why we re-issue this question to the WG in  
order to have more feedback.

The question is wether  a MN should be able to utilize the interface  
attached to
both foreign and home simultaneously.

[ ] YES
[ ]  NO

If you answer YES to the question above,
Should MCoA document support this feature?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO (not in MCoA, but in a separate document)

The deadline for this consensus call  is October the 8th 2007.

Thank you,
Monami6 chairs

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

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:26:30 +0900

Hi All,

Thanks Nicolas and Thierry for asking this question.

I am currently updating the MCoA document.
I really appreciate if you can answer to this question.

thanks,
ryuji

On 2007/09/24, at 23:50, Nicolas Montavont wrote:

> As Ryuji Wakikawa promised in the previous meeting, Ryuji wants to  
> go back to the original question.
> feedback from WG. This is why we re-issue this question to the WG  
> in order to have more feedback.
>
> The question is wether  a MN should be able to utilize the  
> interface attached to

---

From: Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:04:44 +0200

Hi,

On 2007/09/24, at 16:50, Nicolas Montavont wrote:
> [X] YES

Even though it may look more interesting to use only the interface  
attached to the home network, it can be interesting to support also  
interfaces attached to the foreign network for failover in case of  
home link failure or load sharing purposes.

> [X] NO (not in MCoA, but in a separate document)

By using a virtual home link and a foreign link directly connected to  
the HA, the current draft already allows to have "almost home"  
support using one-hop tunnelling. Further optimization to avoid that  
1-hop tunnel could be investigated in a separate document.

-- 
Romain KUNTZ
[email-masked]
Louis Pasteur University - Networks and Protocols Team