Data forwarding behaviour of co-located HA/LMA in PMIP6-MIP6 interactions scenario C
draft-weniger-netlmm-mip-pmip-forwarding-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Kilian Weniger , Genadi Velev , Vijay Devarapalli | ||
| Last updated | 2008-10-27 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
In PMIP6-MIP6 interactions scenario C, the HA and LMA are co-located and a transition between MIP6 and PMIP6 is supported without breaking the session. This draft discusses possible data forwarding behaviours of the co-located HA/LMA in such scenario. The two recently discussed options are: 1) data forwarding always according to the mobile node's MIP6 BCE, if exists, which means that MIP6 BCE has higher priority than PMIP6 BCE, or 2) data forwarding according to type of the last received mobility management registration message, i.e., PMIP6 and MIP6 BCE have equal priority. It is argued that option 1) increases handover delay by 1 MN-HA RTT and implementation complexity of the HA/LMA may be higher. Hence, it is proposed that HA/LMA should behave according to option 2, i.e., MIP6 BCE and PMIP6 BCE have same priority and HA/LMA forwards data according to the type of the last received mobility management registration message.
Authors
Kilian Weniger
Genadi Velev
Vijay Devarapalli
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)