Re: Interaction between ARs in lmm domain (was Re: [netlmm] Re: [Mipshop] comments on Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers over IEEE 802.16eNetworks draft)

Great, I'll wait for the draft! Thanx.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajeev Koodli" <rajeev@iprg.nokia.com>
To: "James Kempf" <Kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
Cc: "Gerardo Giaretta" <Gerardo.Giaretta@TILAB.COM>;
<soohong.park@samsung.com>; <mipshop@ietf.org>; "Heejin Jang"
<heejin.jang@samsung.com>; <Phil.Roberts@motorola.com>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Interaction between ARs in lmm domain (was Re: [netlmm] Re:
[Mipshop] comments on Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers over IEEE 802.16eNetworks
draft)

>
>
> James Kempf wrote:
>
> > Even if DNA isn't used, the MN can use oDAD for the src addr and the pAR
for
> > the dest addr. In this case, the MN would have had to configure the new
CoA
> > using prehandover prefix information or prefix information derived from
the
> > specialized link support.
> >
>
> I think we are digressing from the main thread..
>
> FYI: there is a draft specifying FMIP and DNA interaction that should
> appear soon.
>
> draft-koodli-dna-fmip-00.txt
>
> A protocol (FMIP) should be able to work on its own, while also being
> able to work well when some other protocol is available.
>
> The FBU can be constructed as above. But we still need a way to inform
> NAR to flush the buffer.
>
> > So, I wonder, is FNA really needed anymore for FMIP? Seems like it could
> > really simplify the protocol to have it concentrate on FBU.
>
> See above. In cases where we can assume that an announcement that makes
> the NAR's ND state REACHABLE (for NCoA) is available, we can make do
> without it.
>
>
> -Rajeev
>
>
> >
> >             jak
> >
> >
>

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