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

From: Ash h <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 16:01:55 -0700 (PDT)

The problem that I sense in using the FA addr in the Binding/Registration Req is at the point where the decapulation is to occur. If the LSP terminates at the FA then would the FA not have to re encapsulate the datagram using the MN's colocated COA before fwding it to the MN? This is because the MN would expect itself to be the tunnel terminator. How would one solve this?

  [email-masked] wrote: 

Hi,
I am trying to solve the integration problem when MN nodes wants to use
colocated COA but's doesn't have MPLS functionality. One scenario is the mobile
node may want to use new address for new sessions but want to use old address
for current sessions.

Thanks,
Satish

Satish Amara

Ash h on 05/07/2001 04:26:24 PM

Please respond to [email-masked]

Sent by: Ash h 

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

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).

[email-masked] wrote:

Hi,
Please see for my comments.

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

Please respond to [email-masked]

Sent by: Ash h

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!

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.

[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!

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

   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).

  [email-masked] wrote: 

Hi,
Please see for my comments.

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

Please respond to [email-masked]

Sent by: Ash h 

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! a! ! ! ! ddress(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!

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.

  [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! 

---------------------------------

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!

---

From: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 10:16:35 -0400

I am only concerned with fast scheme for AAA evaluation. The major
isssues are OSPF/MPLS, encapsulation of IP header is also
        out of the scope in my work
 
        -Sharif

-----Original Message-----
From: Jun Kyun Choi [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 10:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Mobile-IP and MPLS Integration

I read the discussion relating to my draft at this time. The proposed draft
is only concerned with the backbone network using MPLS.
It means that the re-encapsulation between MN and FA is out of scope in this
draft.
I guess that there may be a number of mobile agents inside home network or
foreign network. They can help to encapsulate from MN to FA/LER 
if it is needed.
 
Jun Kyun Choi