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

From: Ashish Mehta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 20:07:13 -0800

draft-ietf-mobileip-3gwireless-ext-02.txt alludes to R-P registration
messages being sent to UDP port 434. Does this imply that the mobile
IP agent (processing the MobileIP registrations) and the R-P agent
(processing the R-P registrations) are one and the same daemon/process?
It certianly appears so, since UDP would not be able to distinguish
between two unicast listeners on the same port.

Would'nt this be a problem for vendors who want to productize only
a mobile IP solution and use  a third party  solution for the R-P
agent?

Pardon me if this has already been discussed on the mailing list, but
I am curious if this has been given any thought.

ashish

---

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 10:01:18 -0600

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: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:38:04 -0800

I know there has been some discussion after this.

> between two unicast listeners on the same port.

In this case it might be good to implment as one process.

Implementation as one  process or multiple depends  of your system and
design.  Although  the following  example  is a   little off,  hope it
convays the meaning. One can implement  FA and HA functionality as one
process or as two processes or even as  three processs as long as they
communicate with each  other.  Similarly one  can  implement Mobile IP
and RP message processing in one process or multiple.

If you want  to  implelent as  two,   then you might  want some  third
process to  do the  listening and communicate.   If  you can bind your
socket an IP address as  well than you can  use different IP addresses
and implement them.

I am not saying  that this is a  best  way to do   this but just  some
random thoughts.

> a mobile IP solution and use  a third party  solution for the R-P

I guess you will  run into the same  problem if one implements some of
the   extensions and   want to use   other   extensions from an  other
implementation.

-Gopal