RE: [Mipshop] FMIPv6 Reactive Handover - HI/HAck

["Junghoon Jee" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vidya,
I made the same question through DNA WG recently regarding FMIP-DNA I-D.
 
You can find the previous discussion through the attached message.
 
I am still questioning why HI/HAck for the access control is required after
MN has already attached to NAR in the reactive case.
 
Junghoon
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rajeev Koodli [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:46 AM
> To: Junghoon Jee
> Cc: 'Syam Madanapalli'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [DNA] draft-koodli-dna-fmip-00.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Junghoon Jee wrote:
> 
> > Rajeev,
> >  
> > 
> >>For both predictive and reactive modes, HI/HAck can be useful for 
> >>access control. NAR can forward packets for the MN without forcing 
> >>access control, through HI/HAck.
> > 
> 
> One could use HI/HAck for CT, but I am not referring to that.
> 
> When FBU processing is successful, PAR's message (HI) to NAR 
> can allow NAR to "validate" the ND cache entry for NCoA.
> No Context Transfer is involved. The fields in HI (PCoA, NCoA,
> LLA) are sufficient for the purpose.
> 
> -Rajeev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Are you saying about context transfer by HI/HAck ?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Junghoon
> > 
> > 
> >>(If it is not clear, FMIP-DNA is applicable when DNA+oDAD is 
> >>available,
> >>  and no neighborhood information is available for FMIP)
> >>
> >>-Rajeev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Syam Madanapalli wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hello Junghoon,
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for reviewing the draft.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi Syam,
> >>>>It's an interesting work.
> >>>>After reviewing this I-D, I've come up with a following question.
> >>>>
> >>>>About the role of HI/HACK in this reactive FMIPv6-DNA :
> >>>>I thought that these messages are required to confirm the MN's 
> >>>>prospective NCoA in predictive mode.
> >>>>In the FMIPv6-DNA, MN configures the NCoA by optimistic 
> DAD in the 
> >>>>reactive mode, so why do those messages needed to be
> >>
> >>transferred and
> >>
> >>>>what's their roles ?
> >>>>Just to prepare for future optional behavior the same as
> >>
> >>specified in
> >>
> >>>>the draft-ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6-03 ?
> >>>>I guess that my question may also apply to the reactive mode of 
> >>>>draft-ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6-03.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>As you mentioned, currently there is no new use of HI/HACK
> >>
> >>other than
> >>
> >>>what is mentioned in FMIPv6 RFC.  That is, NAR can make use of the 
> >>>knowledge that its trusted peer (i.e., PAR) has a trust
> >>
> >>relationship
> >>
> >>>with the
> >>>MN.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Regards,
> >>>>Junghoon
> >>>>
> >>>
> > 
> 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop