Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] MIPv6 Issue 144: Mobile Prefix Advertisements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:42:10 +0530

> The deleted prefix question is important. When I wrote the proposal
> I was thinking that the mobile node will send a de-reg BU for the
> prefix that will go away. But what if the MN didn't actually have
> a registration for that prefix? We could of course rely on receiving
> ANY BU but that doesn't really prove anything, as the mobile node
> might be sending them otherwise.

> So I agree that we should only use MPS as the ack, and delete the
> rest of the text that I proposed!

> Jari

How MN will decide between periodic unsolicited MPAs (which is sent to MN
after successful binding by HA) and unsolicited MPAs due to any prefix
change ?

Do we need to acknowledge the periodic unsolicited MPAs with MPS ?

-Sourajeet

----------------------------------------------------------------
Sourajeet Mohanty
Software Engineer
Communications and Embedded Systems
L&T Infotech Ltd., Bangalore
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:28:09 +0200

> Do we need to acknowledge the periodic unsolicited MPAs with MPS ?

I don't think we need to differentiate them. As long as we ack
both of them.

Jari