IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nemo] About BA status 141

Alexandru Petrescu <petrescu@nal.motlabs.com> Wed, 22 October 2003 16:56 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17575 for <nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:56:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACMHB-0003MA-Io; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:56:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACMGQ-0003Hm-7G for nemo@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:55:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17561 for <nemo@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:55:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACMGO-0007kd-00 for nemo@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:55:12 -0400
Received: from ftpbox.mot.com ([129.188.136.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACMGI-0007ka-00 for nemo@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:55:06 -0400
Received: from az33exr04.mot.com (az33exr04.mot.com [10.64.251.234]) by ftpbox.mot.com (Motorola/Ftpbox) with ESMTP id h9MGsxI0012641; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 09:55:05 -0700 (MST)
Received: from thorgal.crm.mot.com (zfr01srv02.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.8]) by az33exr04.mot.com (Motorola/az33exr04) with ESMTP id h9MGstvM018455; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:54:56 -0500
Received: from nal.motlabs.com (test9.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.219]) by thorgal.crm.mot.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A31C2EC95; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:54:55 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3F96B65E.4040006@nal.motlabs.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:54:54 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <petrescu@nal.motlabs.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Noriaki Takamiya <takamiya@po.ntts.co.jp>
Cc: nemo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nemo] About BA status 141
References: <20031022.185854.846933446.takamiya@po.ntts.co.jp> <3F96A4AA.5000105@nal.motlabs.com> <20031023.014612.607960534.takamiya@po.ntts.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20031023.014612.607960534.takamiya@po.ntts.co.jp>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.72.0.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: nemo-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: nemo-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:nemo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Noriaki Takamiya wrote:
>   IMHO, I thought that HA must check if it can forward to the mobile
>   network prefix or not(e.g. using ICMP echoreplay) after
>   configuration for forwarding.
> 
>   I recognize that the check using ICMP is not realistic.

Of course it depends.  The idea of checking connectivity with echo 
request/reply comes to mind immediately when thinking about 
reachability.  For example RR tests of Mobile IPv6 are a sort of just 
that: check routability between CN, MN and HA.

On another hand, a very early version of draft-kniveton-mobrtr had a 
sort of check echo req/rep too from HA to MR, IIRC.  Then it was no 
longer proposed, probably because being an ICMP message does not give 
real reliable indication ("reply" can be lost now and not 10s later).

With failing Mobile IPv6 RR tests, there's a backup: use bidir tunnel 
instead of using RO.  With failing req/rep from HA to MR there is no 
backup, HA simply informs the MR 141.

Or something like that...

Alex
GBU

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email