Re: [Mip4] Question about draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode

Kent Leung (kleung) wrote:
> The router which implements the MIP4 proxy mode may not be enabled with
> FA service.   In such case, collocated Care-of Address may be used for
> Mobile IP registration/tunneling.
>
> I think your question is based on the need for the mobile terminal to
> learn if the network supports PMIP and/or MIP.  Is this in the context
> of WiMAX or just generic MIP?
>   
Generic MIP.
> For generic MIP, a MIP-enabled terminal also supports simple IP.  If the
> terminal is using the MIP Home Address, then it must register with its
> HA via FA CoA or CCoA to maintain its communications.  If a CCoA address
> is available, the terminal may use that IP address as well.  Not clear
> if the terminal needs to know if this IP address is provided mobility by
> the network?  For PMIP, this is suppose to be transparent to the mobile
> terminal.  Of course, the terminal can detect if the CCoA is still
> usable after handover via DHCP, ARP, and/or ICMP mechanisms without
> having to know what the network is doing.
>   
Of course such mechanisms can be used.
I am just wondering if a simple and common mechanism can be used to do so.
Would be more simple and direct to send a RS and get back the answer in 
a RA.
This does not impact existing simple IP terminals that would not send 
RS, but only MIP capable.
Just to ease the job, not contradicting MIP philosophy i guess.
> For WiMAX case, we should probably discuss this on the NWG alias.
>
> Kent
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruno Mongazon-Cazavet
> [mailto:bruno.mongazon-cazavet@alcatel-lucent.fr] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:17 AM
> To: Kent Leung (kleung)
> Cc: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Mip4] Question about draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode
>
> Kent Leung (kleung) wrote:
>   
>> Hi Bruno.  Sorry, I missed this question.
>>
>> In this case, the Router Advertisement will not have the Mobility 
>> Agent Advertisement Extension.
>>   
>>     
> Since a router implementing MIP4 proxy mode includes FA function, isn't
> it logical and consistent to include a Mobility Agent Advertisment
> extension in RA to indicate FA support?
> I would suggest this behaviour can be added to your draft, possibly
> extending the Mobility Agent Advertisment extension to indicate PMIP
> support (i think some place is left for RFU in the format).
>
> What do you think?
>
> Such addition is not intended to be processed (understandable) by simple
> IP terminals, but rather by terminals that might behave as simple IP or
> MIP and need to choose which protocol to use.
>
> Thanks in advance for your reply.
> Bruno.
>   
>> Kent
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruno Mongazon-Cazavet
>> [mailto:bruno.mongazon-cazavet@alcatel-lucent.fr]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 8:48 AM
>> To: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
>> Subject: [Mip4] Question about draft-leung-mip4-proxy-mode
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> When a router implements this draft, how should it reacts to Router 
>> Solicitation?
>> In particular:
>> -should the router fill the Mobility Agent Advertisement extension in 
>> the reply?
>> -should the FA capability be set if only PMIP is supported?
>>
>> Thanks, Bruno.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org
>>     Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
>>      Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
>> Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>   


-- 
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/