Subject: [mobile-ip] mipv6 issue #190

From: Brian Haley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:21:44 -0500

Hi,

Issue #190
http://www.piuha.net/~jarkko/publications/mipv6/issues/issue190.txt
was dealing with the CN sending a Binding Error message to the MN
when a Home Address option is received without a binding cache entry
(and it's not a BU, etc.).  The resolution was to change section 9.3.1
so the CN MUST send a BError, but it still says:

"If the packet is dropped due the above tests, the correspondent node
 SHOULD send the Binding Error message as described in Section 9.3.3.
 The Status field in this message should be set to 1 (unknown binding
 for Home Address destination option)."

Maybe it was missed?  Or did I mis-understand the resolution?

-Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 00:21:01 +0200

> Maybe it was missed?  Or did I mis-understand the resolution?

I think you understood it correctly. This must have been
missed while editing. Sorry for the confusion.

Jari

---

From: Joe Lau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:11:16 -0800 (PST)

Vijay wrote:

> > heres the deal. if the H bit is not set for a particular prefix,
> > that means there is no Home Agent on the home link which will
> > defend addresses derived from that prefix, so there is no point
> > in the MN configuring the home addresses for those prefixes.
> > therefore the MN does no have to hear about those prefixes.
> 
> do you agreee with me here?
>

Vlad responsed:

> Yes, this is _now_ correct since the"multiple address registration"
> ('S' bit) has been removed.
>
> If we proceed with this, "multiple prefix registration" will have be
> redesigned (compared with 'S' bit).  Just something to keep in mind.

This sounds like Vijay's statement _was_ not correct before the S-bit
removal.  If this is the case,  I have a couple questions:

1) Are we also changing the rule on what prefixes the HA send to the MN 
   due to the S-bit removal?   This was not clear during the S-bit removal
   debate.  We need to clarify this issue.

2) If the HA no longer send non-H-bit prefixes to the MN, then the MN 
   will no longer can get the HA to perform Proxy ND on behalf of the MN
   for the non-H-bit prefixes where this _was_ possible before the S-bit
   removal.  I am no fan of the S-bit (in fact, I hated it).   I just
   wanted to clarify my understanding of the S-bit removal.

Joe

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:44:22 -0800

Joe Lau wrote:

>        I am no fan of the S-bit (in fact, I hated it).

So what's _your_ answer for scalable support for multiple prefixes?

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Joe Lau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:04:23 -0800 (PST)

Hello Charlie,

> So what's _your_ answer for scalable support for multiple prefixes?

I was not involved in the S-bit removal debate and I don't want
to get involved now.  I just want to clarify my understanding of 
draft 20 in terms of the S-bit removal and its impact to the rule that
governs what prefixes can be sent to the MN so that I can implement 
draft 20 correctly.

Regards,

Joe