Re: [Mipshop] FMIPv6 - Encapsulating FBU into Mobility Header (FNA)

Hi,

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-koodli-dna-fmip-00.txt
In the above draft, FNA is not required, FBU is sent directly to
PAR without being encapsulated in the FBU.

Section 4
.....
   4.  The MN receives a DNA Router Advertisement, determines change in
       subnet, configures new care of address and makes the address
       optimistic [2].
   5.  The MN sends a Fast Binding Update (FBU) to the Previous Access
       Router (PAR) directly without being encapsulated in FNA.
.....

Even though this draft talks about the reactive handoff with DNA, in 
principle
the FNA can be avoided (I think).

-Syam

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com>
To: <mipshop@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:52 PM
Subject: [Mipshop] FMIPv6 - Encapsulating FBU into Mobility Header (FNA)

> Hello,
>
> I am not sure whether this issue has been already raised, sorry if so.
>
> Encapsulating FBU into an FNA may not be a very good idea.  FNA is an
> option in the Mobility Header, whose 3775-specified Payload Proto is
> IPPROTO_NONE.  That means it can't encapsulate anything.
>
> It is true that 3775 says "Payload Proto [...] intended to be used by a
> future extension" but only to further refer to a non-existent Appendix 
> B.1.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Alex
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshop@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>
> 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop