Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] some questions about draft-ietf-mobileip-fast-mip v6-04

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:27:30 +0200

James,

I rather favor some mechanism to inform the MN after 
the move has occured. For example, sending the MN an 
ICMP REDIRECT message after the access router has changed, 
as Michael has suggested, would do the trick,
as it would avoid the problem of the signaling getting cut off
prematurely.
 
=> A side note, this is not the way redirects are used. 
If there is an indication after the MN moves, then 
we should keep it simple and stick to the original
MIPv6 design. However, I agree with Rajeev's analysis
and suggestions to use the indication before movement.
Also, in the MIPv4 draft, we did add a combined method
for failure modes where the oFA sends the indication
before the MN moves, and if no registration is received
till the MN disconnects, the traffic is forwarded to
the new FA.
This is clearly valid for the case where the network
(FA) is aware of the connection/disconnection state
of the MN.

 Hesham