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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 19:47:15 +0530

Hi Vijay,

Arvind wrote:
>I think this will not work.
>Let's consider MN is in the foreign network it sends BU for the first time
>to CN and that fails, then in this case, CN don't have binding Cache entry
>so while sending BA, CN can not add routing header. But u said always
>include the routing header while sending BA even if the BU fails. How can
>this is possible in this case  ?

Vijay Wrote:
>I think Issue #25 can be easily closed. the solution would be to
>always include the routing header when sending a binding ack
>(even if the BU fails). the only time, when a routing header is
>not included in a binding ack is when the MN returns home and
>sends a deregistration BU.

I too believe that this may be difficult in the above case.("CN does not
have a binding cache entry. CN Rejected the BU. This case, CN cannot do a
binding cache look up based on the home address")

MH messages are processed in the MH protocol context. The interface
functions between Ipv6 and upper layer protocol (like ip6_build_xmit in
Linux) we don't really want to modify. So we cannot pass the routing header
2 parameters to these functions. So the decision of adding routing header
type 2 is difficult to take in MH protocol context, so we have to move it
to the extension header building part. That place if we want to add a
routing header 2 for the above mentioned case  then after looking into
binding cache we have to explicitly evaluate that the message is a BA and
since there is no Binding cache entry we have to add routing header type 2
in this case explicitly. Moreover here I am confused that whether I can get
the COA at this stage if the destination address is MN's Home Address.

Regards
pav

                    arvind.sevalkar@lntinfote                                                          
                    ch.com                          To:     [email-masked]              
                    Sent by:                        cc:                                                
                    [email-masked]       Subject:     Re: [mobile-ip] issue #25             
                    ng.sun.com                                                                         

                    05/18/2002 07:26 PM                                                                

hi,

I think Issue #25 can be easily closed. the solution would be to
always include the routing header when sending a binding ack
(even if the BU fails). the only time, when a routing header is
not included in a binding ack is when the MN returns home and
sends a deregistration BU.

Vijay

I think this will not work.
Let's consider MN is in the foreign network it sends BU for the first time
to CN and that fails, then in this case, CN don't have binding Cache entry
so while sending BA, CN can not add routing header. But u said always
include the routing header while sending BA even if the BU fails. How can
this is possible in this case  ?

Arvind

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 14:18:47 +0200

=> I believe these implementation considerations are totally irrelevant.
More, I believe this requirement for a RH in BA packets in the general case
is very far to be new, so has been supported for years.

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: for the same reason a BU should be with a HAO, a BA should be with
a RH...