Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] RFC2002bis

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:34:44 -0500

>
>Why does an FA need to ARP the MN?  The FA knows the MN's MAC address
>when the MN registers and should store this info in future communications.
>Am I not seeing a scenario that you're describing that requires an FA
>to ARP?

Right. Actually I'm not for ARPing the MN. All I was saying was ARPing would
not work with unicast. I agree the right way to extract the MAC address would
be to get it from the packets recevied from the MN.

>
>> >> Q: new FA forwarding text; sometimes two MNs on the same FA sometimes get
>> >>    traffic forwarded directly rather than via HA.
>>
>> The host specific route to MN shouldn't be available to any packets
>> other than the ones arriving to FA on the tunnel configured for this MN.
>> This requires forwarding based on not only destination address but also
>> incoming interface. Without this, there's the problem of getting HA out
>> of the loop, and in the case of MN moving another site, host specific
>> route will not go away until previous FA expires the registration,
>> and until then any communication going through this FA will be
>> interrupted.
>>
>> How about adding some text, requiring above prevention.
>>
>
>Isn't this route optimization? :)

Well it's. It's free route optimization with side effects. Without somebody
doing a clean up after MN moves to some other foreign link, this is going to
cause interruption to some of the communication.

>  My thought is that bad to have
>packets forwarded directly instead of always through HA in the case
>both MNs are attached to the same FA?  Should this be switching
>implementation dependant?  I guess is the behaviour a MUST or SHOULD?
>
>-- Kent --
>