Subject: Re: MEXT charter [was Re: [Monami6] consensus call on draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt]

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:38:33 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Ryuji,
  See below.

Regards,

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>; Monami6 WG <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 5:24:42 AM
Subject: Re: MEXT charter [was Re: [Monami6] consensus call on draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04.txt]

Hi Behcet,

On 2007/09/28, at 0:28, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> Hi all,
>   Have the people in this ML paid attention to a recent discussion  
> in netlmm on the problems related to multihomed MNs and point to  
> point links?

The discussion of multihomed MN in NETLMM is slightly different from  
the problem discussed in Monami6.
The netlmm issue is more general issue:
-whether an IPv6 host can have the same IP address on multiple  
interfaces.
-how MAG/LMA can prevent assigning the same prefix to multiple  
interfaces.

[behcet] Similar problems apply to monami6 on PtP links?

> My feeling is that in monami6 the fundamental assumption is shared  
> link. However this may not be true even if MN attaches to the links  
> that are traditionally shared because HA has to assign per MN  
> prefix to MN

Why HA has to assign per MN prefix??
[behcet] Because of multi-link subnet problem. Read RFC 4903.

> and also all cellular links are point to point.
[behcet] Yes, for 3GPP read RFC 3314, for WiMAX read http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
3GPP2 is similar, they specified it in their own standards.

Do you mean all cellular links are managed with PMIP?

[behcet] No, there is CMIP and there is Simple IP. But the link model is the same.

regards,
ryuji

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