Vijay Devarapalli writes: But when off link, it doesnt make sense for
it configure a home address based on prefix for which the H bit is not
set because nobody is going to defend that address on the MN's behalf.

There is nothing that can be done about this without the S bit.

-----------

Joe Lau writes: Then we should make this clear on draft.

10.3.1 Primary Care-of Address Registration
   o  ...

   o  Else, if the home address for the binding (the Home Address field
      in the packet's Home Address option) is not an on-link IPv6
      address with respect to the home agent's current Prefix List, ...

Currently, the word "on-link" does not suggest anything about the H-bit
of the prefix.  I checked the MIPL implementation.  It also does not seems
to check the H-bit either...

	void mipv6_bu_add_home(....)
		ifp = is_on_ink_ipv6_address(haddr, daddr);

		if (ifp == NULL) {
			ba_status = NOT_HOME_SUBNET;
			...
		}

The draft really needs to clarify this issue better.

-----------

Jari Arkko writes: I agree. I suggest changing the bullet item to:
 
   o  Else, if the home address for the binding (the Home Address field
      in the packet's Home Address option) is not an on-link IPv6
      address with respect to the home agent's current Prefix List
      and the prefix is advertised by a home agent with the Home Agent
      (H) bit set, ...

-----------

Vijay Devarapalli responds to Jari Arkko: did you want to say?

   o  Else, if the home address for the binding (the Home Address field
      in the packet's Home Address option) is not an on-link IPv6
      address with respect to the home agent's current Prefix List
      or if the corresponding prefix was advertised without the 
      Home Agent (H) bit set, ...

the (...) talks about rejecting a binding update with status set to
132 (not home subnet)

-----------

Jari Arkko responds to Vijay Devarapalli: That's right. Thanks.

-----------