Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Re: HAO and BE processing will be mandated

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:12:49 -0500

I thought it was already decided that a CN MUST respond with a rate limited
"lack of resources" response to the request for route optimization. If this
is the case then it seems to follow that the processing of the HOA for this
purpose MUST also be supported if the HOA is to be a part of the request to
do route optimization - but only to this extent. Perhaps some clarification
in the draft is all that is necessary as to what is meant by the MUST.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:25:22 +0300

Glenn Morrow wrote:

> I thought it was already decided that a CN MUST respond with a rate 
> limited "lack of resources" response to the request for route 
> optimization.

Yes!

> If this is the case then it seems to follow that the 
> processing of the HOA for this purpose MUST also be supported if the HOA 
> is to be a part of the request to do route optimization - but only to 
> this extent.

Indeed.

However, I believe this thread is not about the support of HAO with RO --
it is more about the support of HAO with IPsec and triangular routing.
Folks are complaining that there is not sufficient reason to have a MUST
for that special case. And I'm starting to agree...

Jari