|
List Info
Thread: Re: MEXT charter
|
|
| Re: MEXT charter |
  United States |
2007-09-28 09:38:33 |
|
Hi Ryuji, &nb sp; See below.
Regards,
--behcet
----- Original Message ---- From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <ryuji.wakikawa gmail.com> To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya ieee.org>; Monami6 WG <monami6 ietf.org> 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, O n 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
|
[1]
|
|
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )
|