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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 15:09:47 +0530

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?

=> 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?)

==>>
I am satisfied with this, BU to CN or HA should have HAO and BA should have
RH except when BU is for deleting the Binding cache entry.

Arvind

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:07:15 -0700

hi Arvind,

> RH except when BU is for deleting the Binding cache entry.

a small addition to this. the BA should have a routing header when
the BU for deleting the Binding Cache entry is sent from a visited
link. otherwise the BA would not reach the MN. the routing header 
is not present only when the MN returns home and sends a 
deregistration BU.

Vijay