Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] draft 15

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 16:46:58 +0100

=> Why don't we go for 2) ? 
The effect would be that the HA will continue to intercept
packets and if corresponding with the MN, the applications
will still work. 
The issue here is how to avoid the tunnel interface. 

Cheers,
Hesham

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 17:01:12 +0100

=> initial question:

  >Section 8.3:
  >Some HA (also being a CN) receives a BU without H-bit from a node already
  >registered _with_ the H-bit set.
  >What would be a sensible reaction?
  >1) Stop intercepting packets and just work as a usual CN
  >2) Ignore the missing H-bit in the BU
  >3) ?

=> to send back an error won't flush the binding cache entry.

=> it seems the MN has to cleanly delete its home registration first
(i.e. 1) is hard to implement (according to HA implementers here)
and this MN behavior is not natural: something is wrong and this
has to be signaled back to the MN).

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: "Peter Grimstrup (TED)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 08:25:33 +0100

Thanks for the swift responses,

But if the MN doesn't know this router is its HA, it may ask
another to be that. That will hopefully be rejected by DAD,
thus leading to further confusion/action and communication
from the MN. This speaks against option 2)

/Peter

-- 
Peter Grimstrup          Systems Developer
Ericsson Telebit A/S     tel: +45 89 38 52 75
Skanderborgvej 232       fax: +45 89 38 51 01
DK 8260 Viby J, Denmark  e-mail: [email-masked]