Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] MN's packet reception

From: "Jiwoong Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:06:10 +0900

All

In addtion to the original mail, I suggest to remove the last subordinate
clause (*) starting with "as if.." of the below paragraph in MobileIPv6-13,
because

[1] Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 spec does not state that kind of
statement and
[2] the MN's BU condition (#) seems to be outof accord with (*), perhaps
from the view point of implementation.

comment please.

Jiwoong

   For packets received by either the first or last of these three
   methods, the mobile node SHOULD send a Binding Update to the original
   sender of the packet, as described in Section 10.8, subject to the
   rate limiting defined in Section 10.11.  The mobile node SHOULD
   also process the received packet in the manner defined for IPv6
   encapsulation [4], which will result in the encapsulated (inner)
   packet being processed normally by upper-layer protocols within the
   mobile node, (*)as if it had been addressed (only) to the mobile node's
   home address.

and

   In addition, when a mobile node receives a packet for which the
   mobile node can deduce that the original sender of the packet has
   no Binding Cache entry for the mobile node, or for which the mobile
   node can deduce that the original sender of the packet has an
   out-of-date care-of address for the mobile node in its Binding Cache,
   the mobile node SHOULD return a Binding Update to the sender giving
   its current care-of address (subject to the rate limiting defined
   in Section 10.11).  In particular, the mobile node SHOULD return a
   Binding Update in response to receiving a packet that meets all of
   the following tests:

(#)   -  The packet was tunneled using IPv6 encapsulation.
    ...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jiwoong Lee" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 9:44 AM
Subject: [mobile-ip] MN's packet reception

> All,
>
> Becasue CN's requirement to use Binding Cache when it sends
> a packet to MN is "SHOULD", the corresponding possibilities
> in which a MN receives a packet while away from home also
> should be described legitimately.
>
> A MN MAY receive a packet
> addressed to its home address, which is sent by a CN that DOES
> have a Binding Cache entry for the MN, if the CN does NOT like
> to use Routing Header.
>
> Jiwoong
> --
>
>
> 8.9. Sending Packets to a Mobile Node
>
>    Before sending any packet, the sending node SHOULD examine its
>    Binding Cache for an entry for the destination address to which the
>    packet is being sent.  If the sending node has a Binding Cache entry
>    for this address, the sending node SHOULD use a Routing header to
>    route the packet to this mobile node (the destination node) by way
>    of the care-of address in the binding recorded in that Binding Cache
>    entry. ...
>
>
> 10.3. Receiving Packets While Away from Home
>
>    While away from home, a mobile node will receive packets addressed to
>    its home address, by one of three methods:
>
>     -  Packets sent by a correspondent node that does not have a
>        Binding Cache entry for the mobile node, will be sent by the
>        correspondent node in the same way as any normal IP packet.  Such
>        packets will then be intercepted by the mobile node's home agent,
>        encapsulated using IPv6 encapsulation [4], and tunneled to the
>        mobile node's primary care-of address. ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------