Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] MN-to-MN communications in MIPv4

From: "Karim El-Malki (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:50:42 +0100

What I should have written is that it wasn't clear what scenario would
require all packets to go through the HA, while reverse tunneling was
more obvious. The accounting can be done in the FA. Is there any other
scenario where all traffic must go through the HA? If not then this
shortcut may be done by the FA if bidirectional tunneling is not used.
Otherwise I agree with what you're saying.

/Karim

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 14:42:23 +0100 (CET)

> Otherwise I agree with what you're saying.

I don't know if folks have built or are building MIPv4 FAs that collect
accounting information. In such a case, from reading the RFCs, they
would presumably expect all packets to go through the HA.
Thus having FAs implement shortcuts might be an unpleasant surprise in
that case.

Having the accounting be done in the FA (without the ability for the HA
to verify it) is a quite different model. THus I'm not debating that a
system can't be built to work that way - I'm just pointing out that allowing
FA shortcuts is a change to the RFCs as I understand them.
 
  Erik