Subject: [mobile-ip] New Draft: draft-muhanna-mobileip-compat-00.txt

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:58:28 -0500

Hello all,

In response to the need of a dynamic mechanism as part of Mobile IPv4 
registration to synchronize the version of the standards used by all 
Mobile IPv4 entities, I have submitted a new draft to the Mobile IP 
WG with the following abstract:

Abstract

   Mobile-IP, together with several other supporting standards such
   as Reverse Tunneling and the Challenge-Response extensions, have
   all been recently revised.  Although such revisions are for the
   most part backward compatible with the original versions,
   sometimes static configuration of Mobile Nodes and Mobility Agents
   is required to ensure smooth transition and avoid any possible
   conflict between different standard versions implemented by
   already-deployed equipment.  In this draft we define compatibility
   extensions for Mobile-IP Agent Advertisement, Registration Request
   and Registration Reply messages that allow all Mobile-IPv4
   entities to dynamically synchronize their "compatibility
   versions", defined as the versions of the Mobile-IP standards that
   a particular node is able to support.  This solution offers a
   dynamic mechanism which informs all entities involved in a
   Mobile-IP exchange of the version of the standard they support,
   therefore reducing the need to statically configure such
   information at Mobile Nodes or Mobility Agents.

Until it shows up in the drafts directory, it is on the co-author Luca
Salgarelli web
page. To get to it, please use the following link:

http://www.bell-labs.com/user/salga/doc/draft-muhanna-mobileip-compat-00.txt

Regards;
Ahmad Muhanna

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:46:14 -0500

Ahmad,
  I have not read your draft but from the abstract this sounds like 
something that can be done with MIB, although it would probably be 
static. Have you formulated the change as a modified MIB? Then SNMP 
would solve your problem.
  If you are proposing further changes to MIPv4 then this might take us 
into a backward compatibility loop.
Regards,

-- 
Behcet