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

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 13:25:18 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Alper,

>One more question remaining from my last message: what if MN doesn't support 
>BETH?
>
>With the current protocol specification, ARs don't know this, since there's no 
>message sent from MN to AR. Maybe we should have one?
>
>If ARs run BETH assuming MN supports it, this might cause problems with 
non-BETH 
>mobiles:

Yes, I think that there probably ought to be some way to indicate
this. And also for FMIPv6. Otherwise, the AR might think the
MN can do FMIPv6 handover and send it the PrxyRtAdv. The MN
will ignore it, of course, but perhaps better to not send it
at all.

So it seems like we should have a code in SolRtAdv and SolPrxyRtAdv
for indicating whether the MN supports FMIPv6 or BETH as well. 

		jak

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:32:20 -0700

> for indicating whether the MN supports FMIPv6 or BETH as well.

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.

vijay