Subject: RE: [nemo] NEMO DHAAD instead of bit in BAck?

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:13:18 -0000

> > 1) I agree with the idea. But DHAAD is an option and I believe HA
still
> > must echo the R bit.
> 
> the only other way (apart from DHAAD) a Mobile Router acquires Home
> Agent information is through manual configuration. so why do we need
> a flag in the Binding Ack? the Mobile Router should not attempt
> registration with a Home Agent that does not support Mobile Routers.
> 

I'd put it there for consistency, and to check for config errors. If you
look at it, many error codes and operations we have actually detect
invalid config and report that to the admin. 

Eg: DAD on the Home Link. Since the Home Address is configured on the
MR, it's as 'good' as any fixed address on any fixed node. In other
words it's not autoconfigured. We're looking for an erroneous config (or
change of config). This test is not really costly to implement, and then
you're 100% sure that the 0 in the binding ack means OK for a basic Nemo
registration.

I'd say it 'nice to have' + 

Pascal

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:25:23 -0800

hi Pascal,

I would like to avoid any extra specification and extra code
if possible. I dont really see the need for adding a flag to
the Binding Ack, now that we have modified to DHAAD for the
Mobile Routers to discovery only Home Agents with mobile
router support.

does anybody else have an opinion?

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:25:23 -0800

hi Pascal,

Vijay