Subject: RE: Multiple address in RH type 2 (was Re: [nemo] RO taxonomy)

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:05:45 +0200

> 
> > RFC 3775 should have allowed more than one address in RH type 2
> > and required that the desination address on the packet and the next
> > addressed to be processed in the routing header belong to the same
> > node. this would have allowed us to include more than one address
> > in the routing header, but still satisfy the security requiements
> > of Mobile IPv6.
> 
> I guess I don't agree 100% with this since RH2 was supposed to be a
special case
> to hold the HoA.  Extending it to have more than that seems to turn it
into a
> glorified RH0 with MRs in it, but that's my opinion...
> 
Well, there is a difference: we can (and must) put a restriction in the
usage of the extended RH2. And that restriction is to go down the nested
tree only. In particular if the source routed path in the RH2 is strict
(not loose), we can force that the next entry in the RH is actually part
of an MNP of the MR that processes the RH2. This is explicitly what the
RRH draft says.

Pascal

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:38:05 -0700

> of an MNP of the MR that processes the RH2. This is explicitly what the

How would the strict restriction work when the mobile network (imagine a 
large cruise ship) has one or more layers of regular routers, and then 
the passangers arrive with their PANs that have their MRs?

A strict routing check assumes that all the routers are listed.

    Erik