Hi Hesham, Hesham Soliman wrote:
Regardless of the approach, the solution we had in mind would transfer flow descriptions and binding information between the flow in question and one or more of the mobile node's addresses. The sender of this information is the mobile node. The receiver is either a correspondent node or another intermediate node. If we use the terms HA/MAP then we're implying the use of MIPv6. So I'll stick to generic language.
==> I think that the solution you describe in your draft for flow bindings might be enough for MIPv6 but it is not sufficient for instance in NEMO case (or other non MIPv6 intermediate node case). In the flow binding draft it is mandatory for the intermediate node to be able to receive a BU message, right?
In NEMO the MNN cannot send a BU message to the MR so the MNN. Because of this you would need to write another draft (which would resemble I think the one or both of the alternative solutions). Or change the NEMO so the MNN can send BU to the MR?
Just as an example. In NEMO the MNN might have a need to set the preferred routes for it's traffic into the MR. For instance, think of a case where the MNN is a laptop and the user uses a cellular phone with multiple interfaces as a MR. In this scenario the user most certainly would expect some control over the application flows from the laptop trough the phone.
Best regards, Heikki Mahkonen _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
