[mipshop] Two questions about selection between HMIP and FMIP in Mobile IPv6
qinxia <alice.Q@huawei.com> Mon, 17 April 2006 09:40 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVQE1-0006q6-UD; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:40:53 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVQE0-0006q1-R5 for mipshop@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:40:52 -0400
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.53] helo=huawei.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FVQDz-0003Gi-2o for mipshop@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 05:40:52 -0400
Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IXV006YD1IW59@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for mipshop@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:40:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.6]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IXV006ES1IW1J@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for mipshop@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:40:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from q52443 ([10.164.45.23]) by szxml02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IXV00COP25M9B@szxml02-in.huawei.com> for mipshop@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:53:54 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:39:49 +0800
From: qinxia <alice.Q@huawei.com>
Subject: [mipshop] Two questions about selection between HMIP and FMIP in Mobile IPv6
To: 'qinxia' <alice.Q@huawei.com>
Message-id: <000401c66202$e212b010$5262fea9@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Cc: mipshop@ietf.org, Chengping Ye <yechengping@huawei.com>, Liyun ou <ouly@huawei.com>
X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mipshop.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mipshop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
Hello, everyone,
I am confused about a question in selection between HMIP and
FMIP in Mobile IPv6.
which protocol should be used by a MN roaming from one AP to
the other? What does the selection depend on? The two-layer
information? As if it does depend on the two-layer information,what are
they namely?
Another question:
In the draft-jang-dhc-haopt-02.txt,in DHCPv6, Home Network
Identifier Option(HNI option) is defined to carry the identifier of the
target home network. The target may be local home agent (eg. MAP in
HMIP) or real home agent in given home domain. In this Option, if the
id-type is 0, it means the Home Network Identifier will be NULL; But In
HMIP,after the MN received the response from the MAP which acted as one
local home agent, the MN should send the BU to the real home agent .
The question comes out. During bootstrapping, as if the MN
make a decision on performing HMIP, the MN will send a DHCP request
including the HNI option (id-type is 0), then it will not receive the
information about real home agent.
Anyone can give me the detailed explaination or a scenario?
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop