Subject: [netlmm] FW: a qtn on pmipv6 multi-homing

From: Sam Jeyaseelan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:48:40 -0700

forwarding to the correct forum....( i guess)..

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sam Jeyaseelan [[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:58 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: a qtn on pmipv6 multi-homing

As per the section 5.4 from rfc 5213:
     ...
     ...
     When a mobile node connects to a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain through
      multiple interfaces for simultaneous access, the local mobility
      anchor MUST allocate a mobility session for each of the attached
      interfaces.  Each mobility session should be managed under a
      separate Binding Cache entry and with its own lifetime.

In this paragraph, Does multiple-interface mean multiple Proxy-care-of-addressess?
Would someone throw some light on this?

thanks in advance.

-Sam

4G R&D engineer
JDSU
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:59:39 -0700

> In this paragraph, Does multiple-interface mean multiple
> Proxy-care-of-addressess? Would someone throw some light on this?

A mobile node with multiple interfaces, lets say LTE and WIFI, attaches to
two different access networks one over LTE to MAG-1 and the other over WiFI
to MAG-2. In this case, there would be two Proxy Care-of Addresses, two MIP
tunnels and two MIP sessions/BCE's. Each of those MAG's will have security
relation to the LMA/PGW.

Sri

On 6/7/10 2:48 PM, "Sam Jeyaseelan" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> netlmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Sam Jeyaseelan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:16:39 -0700

thanks Sri for ur reply.

But the benefit of mulioming is potentially greater survivevability of the session in the presence of network failures. For example, my "ip processor" has two ip addresses, they are namely known as primary ip addr and secondary ip addr. If the primary ip link goes down, then the secondary ip link will carry the traffic. In this way, the taffic is never lost.

Section 5.4 is titled as "Multihoming Support",  but i could not see any benefit of actual multihoming features. Because as per your reply, the moble node establishes two independent sessions, one over LTE and the other one over WIFI. 

I am bit confused with the keyword "multihoming in the 5.4".

 -Sam

 4G R&D engineer
 JDSU

________________________________________
From: Sri Gundavelli [[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:59 PM
To: Sam Jeyaseelan; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] FW: a qtn on pmipv6 multi-homing

Sri

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:08:54 -0700

Sam,

We can take it offlist.

The applications on the host can use any of the IP addresses associated with
the attached interfaces. Secondly, we allow inter-technology handoffs, a
prefix P1 on interface-1, can move to interface-2, and that's gives you the
needed session survivability.

Sri

On 6/7/10 3:16 PM, "Sam Jeyaseelan" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> thanks Sri for ur reply.
> 
> But the benefit of mulioming is potentially greater survivevability of the
> session in the presence of network failures. For example, my "ip processor"
> has two ip addresses, they are namely known as primary ip addr and secondary
> ip addr. If the primary ip link goes down, then the secondary ip link will
> carry the traffic. In this way, the taffic is never lost.
> 
> Section 5.4 is titled as "Multihoming Support",  but i could not see any
> benefit of actual multihoming features. Because as per your reply, the moble
> node establishes two independent sessions, one over LTE and the other one over
> WIFI. 
>