Subject: [MOBILE-IP] RFC 2290

From: Core Scott-P18750 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:56:15 -0700

I have been reviewing the latest version of TR45.6 and noticed that the use
of IPCP for Mobile IP (RFC 2290) was specifically prohibited. Can someone
give me some background on why this RFC should not be used?

Thanks

Scott

---

From: Steven Glass - Solaris Software <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:12:55 -0400

> Scott,

    I believe the motivation was they feel it's unnecessary.  The IP Address
option is not mandatory in IPCP, so I think the idea is a node that
understands mobile IP, by omiting it, implies it has an address, and the peer
doesn't push to assign one.  Then when IPCP completes, the [mobile] node does
move detection on the becons.

                              Cheers,
                                  Steve

---

From: Tom Hiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:22:47 -0500

Scott,

We use the RRQ/RRP to tell the PDSN (which supports PPP and FA) the address the
mobile will use. In this case the mobile does not request an address to be
assigned in IPCP.

This approach is more efficient than getting an address from PPP and then
telling PPP in the next moment that the mobile wants to use a different address.

Also we did not hear about a lot of RFC 2290 implementations and people said it
was complex. So that was that.

Thanks,
Tom

PS The PDSN supports both PPP and Mobile IP.