Subject: [nemo] Re: Closing Issue 3

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:32:39 +0100

My original take on July 16 was (REALLY) as follows:

> I would have preferred a text saying that "the MR MUST keep all
> necessary information to clean up whichever routes it installed, for
> instance by keeping the list of prefixES in BCE, whether they come
from
> implicit or explicit source".

I still think it's sufficient and that it goes with the spirit TJ
proposed.

Kent found that this text doesn't cover the case when routes need to be
re-injected into the routing table. Kent answered with the text that
Vijay's assigning to me: 

"The Home Agent MUST keep all necessary information to be able to add or
delete routes associated with the Mobile Router at the time.  For
instance, the list of Mobile Network Prefixes may be stored in the
Binding Cache entry."

But this was not fully correct because the BCE data is transient.

Now Chan Wah is reusing Some of Kent's text (maybe thinking it's mine
from Vijay's note). Note that I took great care to cover static routes
where the HA does NOT inject or remove the routes. This is lost in Kent
and Chan Wah's proposal.

Chan Wah, we may be closing in but please try again (if you do not like
my original take)

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Sent: mercredi 16 juillet 2003 10:04
> To: Vijay Devarapalli
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [nemo] Issue 3
> 
> 
> 
>   "The Home Agent SHOULD store the list of Mobile Network Prefixes
>   owned by a Mobile Router in the corresponding Binding Cache
>   entry.  However this is done only when the Mobile Router has
>   included prefix information in the Binding Update.  This list
>   of prefixes should include only those for which the Home Agent
>   currently has routes pointing to the Mobile Router's current
>   Care-of address.  This information can later be used to delete
>   the routes when the Binding Cache entry for the Mobile Router
>   is deleted."
> 
> > is this okay?
> 
> If the info is to be used to delete the routes, then you need to know
> which prefixes you actually created routes for, so maybe you need more
> info associated to the prefixes, like pointers to the adjacencies that
> were instantiated. This is deep into implementation, a bit to much to
my
> taste.
> 
> I would have preferred a text saying that "the MR MUST keep all
> necessary information to clean up whichever routes it installed, for
> instance by keeping the list of prefix in BCE, whether they come from
> implicit or explicit source". Vijay, please do not tell people how to
> implement things (even if your proposal seems perfectly proper).
> 
> Pascal
>

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jul 2003 16:48:29 +0800

Sorry for the mixed up, Pascal.  I will try harder ;), but not before
the following doubts are answered.

> > implicit or explicit source".

Is that "the MR MUST... " or "the HA MUST..."?

> But this was not fully correct because the BCE data is transient.
By BCE is transient, I presume you meant that BCE entry will expire
according to lifetime field in the BU or BA message.  Why should this be
a problem?  If the MR is alive and still attached to the global network,
it would have sent a refresh or updated BU containing the prefix
(assuming that is how it injected routes) before the BCE expires.  If
the HA does not receive the BU by the time the corresponding BCE
expires, the HA would have to assume that the MR is no longer
reacheable, and should delete the dynamic routes anyway,

> from Vijay's note).

yep right, my mistake, I apologize.

>  Note that I took great care to cover static routes

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jul 2003 16:48:29 +0800