Subject: RE: [nemo] solving Home Network models issue 8

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 08:58:07 +0200

________________________________________
From: Vijay Devarapallli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:10 PM
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Cc: Jari Arkko; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nemo] solving Home Network models issue 8

   On the other hand, there are a number of issues with the support of a
   Home Address that is derived from the MNP, as detailed in
   Section 5.3.  Though it is feasible, this configuration is not
   recommended for deployment.
this is a bit too strong. there are two issues. 

1) the HA needs to do a special check to verify if the home address
is from the home link prefix. in RFC 3775, the HA just compares
the address to the prefix on the home link and rejects the BU if
the home address is not from that prefix.  we extended that in
RFC 3963.

      Mobile IPv6 specification [1] requires that the Home Address in
      the Binding Update be configured from a prefix advertised on the
      home link.  Otherwise the Binding Update is rejected with status
      value 132 [1].  This specification relaxes this requirement so
      that the Home Agent rejects the Binding Update only if the Home
      Address does not belong to the prefix that the Home Agent is
      configured to serve.

2) returning home. there are many issues in returning home.

since we have already fixed 1) and 2) might not be applicable
in many deployments, the above statement you propose is
too strong. 

how about the following?

There are a number of issues with returning home when a mobile
router configures its home address from the MNP as described
in section 5.3. Therefore we do not recommend this mechanism
if the mobile routers attach to the home network.

[<PT>] You're right, that's better

Pascal