Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Comments on rfc2344-bis draft

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:24:37 -0700

In rfc2344-bis section 5.2.1 ( Encapsulating Delivery Style, packet
processing) mentions a case when foregin agent receives an un-encapsulated
packet from a mobiloe node which had explicitly requested the 'Encapsulated
Delivery Style'. We could add two more scenarios in this section, they
are :
  1) When foreign agent receives encapsulated packet from a mobile node
     which has not requested 'Encapsulated Delivery Style' at all. In this
     case foreign agent MUST(?) discard the packet and SHOULD log an error
     message.

  2) When foreign agent receives encapsulated packet from a mobile-node
     which has not requested reverse tunnel. It seems to me encapsulated
     delivary style is useful only in reverse tunnel case, as it's the
     only way a mobile node can send broadcast packet to it's home subnet.
     If the encapsulated packet from MN contains a broadcast or a multicast
     message for the link subnet only then it should be forwarded to it's
     home network only through reverse tunnel.
     So, it seems to me it's good idea to restrict the encapsulated
     delivery style to the mobile node which requests reverse tunneling.
     Thus, if foreign agent recieves such a packet from a visiting MN (not
     requesting reverse tunnel), it should not forward the packet in the
     regular forwarding path. Should it send a ICMP error message to the
     MN stating the problem ?

Regards,
-Samita