Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Mobile-IP and MPLS Integration

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 15:38:57 -0500

Hi,
         Please see for my comments.

Ash h <[email-masked]> on 05/07/2001 02:34:24 PM

Please respond to [email-masked]

Sent by:  Ash h <[email-masked]>

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (Satish Amara/MW/US/3Com)
Subject:  Re: [mobile-ip] Mobile-IP and MPLS Integration

 Why do you think that the co-located care-of-addr should be treated
differently? If the COA is conveyed to the Ingress LER all that it needs to do
is to establish a tunnel [LSP] to that address. The mobile node should be
capable of understanding the Label Map Request. If not then I don't know how the
FA's address will help, since the tunnel is expected to terminate at the MN but
gets terminated at the FA and the FA doesn't know what it should do with the
datagram after decapsulation. Correct me.

>>I am assuming mobile nodes doesn't support MPLS as MPLS is still "core
networks technology". FA would handle
the packet in similar way as it did when COA is of type foreign agent.

>>Also, let say we want to use MPLS for fast forwarding and QOS and not to
eliminate IP tunnel. In this case, we
probably want to fast switch packet from Ingress(HA) to Egress(FA).

Thanks,
Satish

  [email-masked] wrote:

Hi,
I have a question regarding LSP tunnel establishment between Ingress LER
of CN and FA-LER of MN in
section 3.4.2 . RFC.
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-choi-mobileip-ldpext-01.txt
(MPLS-based Mobile IP Route Optimization Scenario.) Also, LSP tunnel between
HA-LER and
FA-LER, is not possible if care of address is of type co-located care-of
address. As both the binding and
registration messages doesn't contain address of FA . One solution to the above
problem
is to mention the FA address(LER) in registration message and binding update
when care of address is of
type co-located.

Thanks,
Satish Amara

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Click and bid on cool stuff like Dave Matthews Band Tickets &
more!

---

From: Ash h <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT)

I guess we are concurring with the fact that the COA must be that of the FA and never that of the MN since MN may not participate in MPLS. Hence the FA should not allow colocated COA if it is in its capacity and instead use the FA COA to terminate the LSP. Thus the need to carry the FA address in a different field may not be necessary[ COA = FA's addr]. I don't think this will hamper any semantics assigned to the LSP (viz QOS, VPN etc).

Hi,

Ash h on 05/07/2001 02:34:24 PM

Sent by: Ash h 

Thanks,
Satish

Hi,

Thanks,
Satish Amara

Why do you think that the co-located care-of-addr should be treated differently? If the COA is conveyed to the Ingress LER all that it needs to do is to establish a tunnel [LSP] to that address. The mobile node should be capable of understanding the Label Map Request. If not then I don't know how the FA's address will help, since the tunnel is expected to terminate at the MN but gets terminated at the FA and the FA doesn't know what it should do with the datagram after decapsulation. Correct me.

Hi,

Thanks,
Satish Amara

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Click and bid on cool stuff like Dave Matthews Band Tickets & more! 

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Click and bid on cool stuff like Dave Matthews Band Tickets & more!