Subject: RE: Issue 3 (was Re: [nemo] Design Team draft for NEMO Basic Solution)

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:58:49 +0100

> > > >
> > > > Nothing is said about the Data Structure of the Home Agent.
Shouldn't
> > > > there be changes to the Binding Cache as well?
> > >
> > > yes. you are right. the HA should store the prefixes
> > > that was sent in the Binding Update. it needs this list
> > > of prefixes later on to delete all the routes, if the
> > > binding cache entry expires. I will add some text.
> > >
> > OK.
> 
> here is some text (to be added to Section 6.1)
> 
>    The Home Agent SHOULD store the list of Mobile Network Prefixes
owned
>    by a Mobile Router in the corresponding Binding Cache entry.  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 is later used to delete the routes when
>    the Binding Cache entry for the Mobile Router is deleted.
> 
>    The Home Agent also stores the status of the Mobile Router Flag 'R'
>    in the Binding Cache entry.
> 

Vijay, can you please be less specific about the data in the BCE? Any
handle to the route info is enough; it does not have to take the form of
a list of prefixes. For instance it can be pointers to the prefix table.
Also, In the case of real static routes, the HA does not install or
clear them, so there's no need to keep them in BCE...

> here is some text. in section 3.
> 
> after
> 
>    The Mobile Router
>    decapsulates the packet and forwards it onto the link where the
>    Mobile Network is connected.
> 
> add
> 
>    The Mobile Router before decapsulating
>    the tunneled packet, has to check if the Source address on the
outer
>    IPv6 header is the Home Agent's address.  It also has to make sure
>    the destination address on the inner IPv6 header belongs to one of
>    its Mobile Network Prefixes before forwarding the packet to the
>    Mobile Network.
> 

You sure can do that. Please note most of it is already there
implicitly. By saying that a packet is received by a MR over the MRHA
tunnel, you implicitly say that the outer source is the HA and the outer
destination is the MR. The tunnel code has to check that at the time is
affects the input interface to the packet. And since the MNet is a stub,
any packet that is not for an MNP would be routed back over the tunnel.
Which would cause the packet to be dropped by poison reverse...

Pascal

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:58:49 +0100

Shouldn't
owned
Care-of

outer

Pascal