Subject: Correction to RFC 2002bis; request for input

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:19:10 -0800

Hello folks,

I cannot find one piece of e-mail which, I believe, suggested
that there was some remaining inconsistency in RFC2002bis
surrounding the dynamic allocation of home addresses vs.
proper handling of Registration Requests at the home agent
when producing the Registration Reply.  If you are reading this
e-mail, and can remember the problem, I would very much appreciate
it if you could remind me what needs to be done.

RFC 2002bis has been corrected to make it clear that Agent
Advertisements can be unicast to a mobile node, for instance
in response to an Agent Solicitation sent by the mobile node
to a foreign agent.

The old text in Section 2.1 was:
                   As specified for ICMP Router Discovery [7], the IP 
                   destination address of an Agent Advertisement MUST
                   be either the "all systems on this link" multicast
                   address (224.0.0.1) [8] or the "limited broadcast"
                   address (255.255.255.255).  The subnet-directed
                   broadcast address of the form <prefix>.<-1> cannot be
                   used since mobile nodes will not generally know the
                   prefix of the foreign network.

The new text is:
                   As specified for ICMP Router Discovery [7], the
                   IP destination address of an multicast Agent 
                   Advertisement MUST be either the "all systems on 
                   this link" multicast address (224.0.0.1) [8] or
                   the "limited broadcast" address (255.255.255.255).
                   The subnet-directed broadcast address of the form 
                   <prefix>.<-1> cannot be used since mobile nodes will
                   not generally know the prefix of the foreign network.
                   When the Agent Advertisement is unicast to a mobile
                   node, the IP home address of the mobile node SHOULD
                   be used as the Destination Address.

Thanks to Kent Leung for forwarding e-mail to me pointing
out this problem.

Regarding RFC2002bis itself, it has been "done" for quite a
while, but it was stuck in the cracks because I was not aware
that I was supposed to have sent another update.  In the
meantime, certain items such as the abovementioned correction
lay inactive because I didn't think it was possible to insert
them while the document was in process.  Since I am producing
another update, the above change has been made, along with
supplying a missing parenthesis and so on.

If there are any other last minute corrections needed, please
let me know ASAP.   I expect this last revision to be done
soon, and I imagine that there further procedural delays are
not very likely.

Regards,
Charlie P.