Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] R-P agent should listen on port 434?

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 08:28:12 -0800

True, but the issue is that the spec, as-is, requires that a Foreign Agent
also support the R-P interface. Although the packets are similar, the
functionality provided is vastly different, begging the question as to
whether requiring that a single process provide both functionality is the
right design choice.

PatC
>The R-P agent needs to listen directly to port 434 on the internal
>(towards the radio access network) interface of the FA.  After an R-P
>tunnel is established, agent advertisements and registrations for
>Mobile IP are carried through the tunnel.  So the Mobile IP agent
>needs to advertise itself and take registrations via these tunneled
>endpoints, each of which could be considered to be a separate, logical
>interface.  So there should be no confusion between the R-P agent and
>the Mobile IP agent, as long as you can plumb these interfaces
>correctly.  Doing this in your particular implementation environment
>is left as an exercise for the reader. :)
>
>-Pete
>
>Ashish Mehta <[email-masked]> (AM) writes:
>
>AM> draft-ietf-mobileip-3gwireless-ext-02.txt alludes to R-P registration
>AM> messages being sent to UDP port 434. Does this imply that the mobile
>AM> IP agent (processing the MobileIP registrations) and the R-P agent
>AM> (processing the R-P registrations) are one and the same daemon/process?
>AM> It certianly appears so, since UDP would not be able to distinguish
>AM> between two unicast listeners on the same port.
>
>AM> Would'nt this be a problem for vendors who want to productize only
>AM> a mobile IP solution and use  a third party  solution for the R-P
>AM> agent?
>
>AM> Pardon me if this has already been discussed on the mailing list, but
>AM> I am curious if this has been given any thought.
>
>AM> ashish

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:26:37 -0600

The draft in no way specifies that the R-P and Foreign Agent
functionality is implemented in the same process.  I was pointing out
that, although they both use port 434, they are on logically distinct
IP interfaces and so can be implemented by the same or different
processes as needed.

-Pete

Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]> (PC) writes:

PC> True, but the issue is that the spec, as-is, requires that a Foreign Agent
PC> also support the R-P interface. Although the packets are similar, the
PC> functionality provided is vastly different, begging the question as to
PC> whether requiring that a single process provide both functionality is the
PC> right design choice.

PC> PatC
AM> ashish