[Mipshop] LLA in FBUs

Emil Ivov <emcho@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr> Fri, 15 April 2005 14:32 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05310 for <mipshop-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DMS2f-0000KX-43 for mipshop-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:43:34 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DMRr3-0001vj-Nx; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:31:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DMRr2-0001rO-5Q for mipshop@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:31:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05184 for <mipshop@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:31:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtp109.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.170.7]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DMS16-0000EO-88 for mipshop@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:41:57 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO ?130.79.90.54?) (emil?ivov@130.79.90.54 with plain) by smtp109.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2005 14:31:19 -0000
Message-ID: <425FD035.1050802@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:31:17 +0200
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr>
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mipshop@ietf.org, Martin André <andre@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Mipshop] LLA in FBUs
X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: emcho@clarinet.u-strasbg.fr
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>
Sender: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello all,

Section 6.2.1 - HI msg fmt (page 23)
draft-ietf-mipshop-fast-mipv6-03.txt says

	The link-layer address of the MN that is
         undergoing handover to the destination (i.e., NAR).
         This option MUST be included so that the destination
         can recognize the MN.

The thing is that when sending a HI the PAR is not necessarily aware of
MN's address.

Ideally (at least according to us here ) a PAR would learn an MN's L2
addr from the FBU. Yet Section 6.3.1. does not mention anything about
including an MH LLA Option. Without such an option we could try and
extract the L2 addr from FBUs L2 packet (which is a bit dirty -
implementation wise) but this would only work for predictive handovers
and there will be no way to do it with an FBU coming from the NAR.

Another way to get MN's L2 addr would be to use the one that arrived
with the RtSolPr and was recorded in the neighbor cache. Yet there is no
guarantee that it will still be there, not to mention the fact that it
might have not been in the RtSolPr in the first place.

So in other words - wouldn't it be better if we had a MUST MH LLA option
for FBUs?

Cheers
Emil


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