Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] issue #25

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:07:56 +0530

Hi,

From: arvind.sevalkar

> But is it really necessary to send Binding Acknowledgement with routing
> header when there is no binding in cache. Because routing header is
> included when there is an entry in the binding cache some implementation
> checks routing header for binding in binding cache.
> We can simply do one thing when there is a binding in the Binding cache
> then we will send BA with routing header and when there is no Binding in
> the Binding cache then we will send BA to the Home address without
routing
> header.
> So BA will be sent to HA without RH header in two cases.
> 1>BU successful and which is for deleting Binding cache entry.
> 2>BU failed and there is no entry in Binding cache, in case when first
time
> MN sends BU to CN and that fails.

I agree with this approach.  The HA and the CN just check if they have
a valid binding cache entry for the MN before sending packets to the
internet.  If they have, they add a rthdr type 2 to all the outgoing
packets to the MN.  If they don't have, just sent it to as is (not
inserting a rthdr type 2).

==>>
I think this is logical also If HA or CN has binding in binding cache then
send BA with routing header otherwise don't.
why to add special code for sending BA with routing header, when there is
no binding in the binding cache? What is the need of it?

Arvind

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 17:37:50 +0200

=> to provide the home address when the BU had one.
So the logic (in the I-D 17 and all previous I-Ds) is to put a RH in the BA
when the corresponding BU had a HAO (this moves the question to when
the BU should have a HAO? :-).

[email-masked]

PS: rationale: the MN sends a BU from the CO@ for H@, it receives a BA:
 - what is the destination address in the header (answer: CO@)
 - what is the destination address seen, for instance, by IPsec
   (answer: H@x)
So if the CO@ is not the H@, the BA must have a RH, and the BU must have
had a HAO.
(This should be rewritten in better English and inserted into the next
draft, shouldn't it?)

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:24:28 +0900 (JST)

> the BU should have a HAO? :-).

I have missed one point...

A rthdr must be added at least for the home registration.  Otherwise,
the HA can't send a BA back to the MN.  So I agree with you Francis,
we must add a rthdr to BAs.

Regards,

---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <[email-masked]>
KAME Project <[email-masked]>