Subject: [Mip4] Question about draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode

From: Bruno Mongazon-Cazavet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:47:50 +0200

Hello,

When a router implements this draft, how should it reacts to Router 
Solicitation?
In particular:
-should the router fill the Mobility Agent Advertisement extension in 
the reply?
-should the FA capability be set if only PMIP is supported?

Thanks, Bruno.

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:04:24 -0700

Hi Bruno.  Sorry, I missed this question.

In this case, the Router Advertisement will not have the Mobility Agent
Advertisement Extension.

Kent 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Mongazon-Cazavet
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:48 AM
To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
Subject: [Mip4] Question about draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode

Hello,

Thanks, Bruno.

---

From: Bruno Mongazon-Cazavet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:17:15 +0200

> In this case, the Router Advertisement will not have the Mobility Agent
Since a router implementing MIP4 proxy mode includes FA function, isn't 
it logical and consistent to include a Mobility Agent Advertisment 
extension in RA to indicate FA support?
I would suggest this behaviour can be added to your draft, possibly 
extending the Mobility Agent Advertisment extension to indicate PMIP 
support (i think some place is left for RFU in the format).

What do you think?

Such addition is not intended to be processed (understandable) by simple 
IP terminals, but rather by terminals that might behave as simple IP or 
MIP and need to choose which protocol to use.

Thanks in advance for your reply.
Bruno.

---

From: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:45:09 -0700

The router which implements the MIP4 proxy mode may not be enabled with
FA service.   In such case, collocated Care-of Address may be used for
Mobile IP registration/tunneling.

I think your question is based on the need for the mobile terminal to
learn if the network supports PMIP and/or MIP.  Is this in the context
of WiMAX or just generic MIP?

For generic MIP, a MIP-enabled terminal also supports simple IP.  If the
terminal is using the MIP Home Address, then it must register with its
HA via FA CoA or CCoA to maintain its communications.  If a CCoA address
is available, the terminal may use that IP address as well.  Not clear
if the terminal needs to know if this IP address is provided mobility by
the network?  For PMIP, this is suppose to be transparent to the mobile
terminal.  Of course, the terminal can detect if the CCoA is still
usable after handover via DHCP, ARP, and/or ICMP mechanisms without
having to know what the network is doing.

For WiMAX case, we should probably discuss this on the NWG alias.

Kent

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Mongazon-Cazavet
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:17 AM
To: Kent Leung (kleung)
Cc: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Mip4] Question about draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode

Kent Leung (kleung) wrote:
> In this case, the Router Advertisement will not have the Mobility 
> Agent Advertisement Extension.
>   

What do you think?

---

From: Bruno Mongazon-Cazavet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:40:14 +0200

> of WiMAX or just generic MIP?
Generic MIP.
> having to know what the network is doing.
Of course such mechanisms can be used.
I am just wondering if a simple and common mechanism can be used to do so.
Would be more simple and direct to send a RS and get back the answer in 
a RA.
This does not impact existing simple IP terminals that would not send 
RS, but only MIP capable.
Just to ease the job, not contradicting MIP philosophy i guess.