Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] New BETH Draft

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:29:22 -0700 (PDT)

>> >you dont need such a thing for FMIPv6. if the MN does not respond
>> >to the PrxyRtAdv, nothing happens. the oldAR does not start
>> >forwarding packets to the newAR. the MN moves over to the newAR,
>> >sends a router solicitation and gets a router advertisement.
>> >
>> 
>> Sure. It's only one message but somehow it seems cleaner to not
>> send it if you don't have to.
>> 
>
>somehow??? would you care to explain?
>
>it beats having an extra bit in the router solicitation or in the
>proxy router solicitation. and the network does not have to store
>state which says this mobile node knows FMIPv6.
>

You need to have a code for BETH for the router to tell the MN
that it is entering a BETH coverage area, and similarly
when it leaves. Why not do the same thing for FMIPv6?

		jak

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 16:29:15 -0700

> when it leaves. Why not do the same thing for FMIPv6?

BETH needs it because the Mobile node is not involved when the
OldAR descides to start forwarding packets to the NewAR. In
FMIPv6, OldAR does not do this until it gets an indication
from the MN. Therefore FMIPv6 does not need it....

vijay