Subject: (mobile-ip) Loose source routing

From: "Vishwanath. S. Edavayyanamath" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:40:46 +0000 (GMT)

Hi,
	In the current issues of Mobile-IP with loose source routing there
are 4 entities involved, the MH, FA, CH and HA.

Well once the CH establishes the connection with MH through HA (as it
doesent know the current point of attachment) and FA, Why we need HA and
FA..? We can just handle things by Loose Source and Record Route Option.
Thus reducing the dependancy and overheads on HA and FA.

Only 3 thing will now come into picture..
The CH, intermediate-router(in the Loose Source and Record Route Option)
and MH.

This concept should go better than IPv6 routing based on Flow Label.

Conclusion :
-------------
	Only for upcomming connections from CH to MH we need the help from
HA and FA (if FA itself is the intermediate router for MH then sorry, we
need help from FA). 
	
	Upcomming connections from MH to CH may not need the help of HA
and FA as we just use Loose Source and Record Route Option in IPv4
Options.

Probelm :
---------
	Network Ingress Filtering will cause a big problem to such an
issue.. even though it is not creating much havoc w.r.t. internet service
providers.
	I think this issue can be solved by having proper security
checkups between Source Routing Hosts and Ingress Filtering Routers.
Say a kind of Passport and Visa which even might help in Fiveriling
issues. i.e., if MH has a Visa, then fine, it can fiddle things out when
it is Foreign..

Suggestions Please :
		___________________________________

vishu

	  / . _
	/_ // //_/><_______________________________________________

	Vishwanath S. Edavayyanamath, Indian Institute of Science,
	Protocol Engineering Lab, Electrical Communication Engineering,
        Bangalore - 560 012, India.
	Ph: (+91)-80-3092282, Fax: (+91)-80-334 7991
        E-mail/Talk/Finger : [email-masked]
	WEB : http://pclab.ece.iisc.ernet.in/vishu/
	FTP : ftp://pclab.ece.iisc.ernet.in/pub/mobileip   / . _
	_________________________________________________/_ // //_/><

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF Mobile IP Working Group Mailing List - Archives:  software.watson.ibm.com
Unsubscribe:	unsubscribe mobile-ip		(as message body, not subject)
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]

---

From: "Vishwanath. S. Edavayyanamath" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 12:08:01 +0000 (GMT)

> > Well once the CH establishes the connection with MH through HA (as
> > it doesent know the current point of attachment) and FA, Why we need
> > HA and FA..? We can just handle things by Loose Source and Record
> > Route Option.  Thus reducing the dependancy and overheads on HA and
> > FA.
> 
> There is a very thorough discussion of why this and various other
> proposals were rejected in favor of the current approach in my book
> from Prentice Hall.  See http://www.prenhall.com/solomon for
> information.
> 

Sir,
	I am avare of Loose source routing problems But, still
Conceptually I was thinking taht for better route optomization the
following idea might be useful.

"HA is required only in case of a initial handshaking
between CH and MH like, CONNECTION_REQUEST, CONNECTION_ACK....!!!.
Once the connection is established we forget HA, and go about with that
particular connection just by Loose source routing concepts, when MH
moves updating next hop address in EVERY IP PACKET accordingly".. And
ofcource EACH PACKET SHOULD CARRY AUTHENTICATION INFO, as a bad guy might
fool.."

Suggestions..!

vishu

	  / . _

	Vishwanath S. Edavayyanamath, Indian Institute of Science,
	Protocol Engineering Lab, Electrical Communication Engineering,
        Bangalore - 560 012, India.
	Ph: (+91)-80-3092282, Fax: (+91)-80-334 7991
        E-mail/Talk/Finger : [email-masked]
	WEB : http://pclab.ece.iisc.ernet.in/vishu/
	FTP : ftp://pclab.ece.iisc.ernet.in/pub/vishu/mobileip   / . _
	_______________________________________________________/_ // //_/><