Subject: [Mipshop] FMIPv6 - Does PAR proxy for PCoA after MN left?

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:42:34 +0200

It may be necessary for PAR to send NAs with its own MAC address for the
MN's PCoA ("proxy" for the PCoA).  The section 4 Protocol Details does
not describe this.

The motivation could be this: two MNs under PAR talk to each other, and
one of them leaves.  Although there's a tunnel from PAR to NCoA, the
packets from the MN1 that is still under PAR won't reach PAR, because
that MN1 has NC entry for PCoA and MN2's MAC address, and after MN2 left
this NC entry will expire (nobody replies to NS).

Alex

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: Subba Reddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:55:18 +0530

Hi Alex,

> this NC entry will expire (nobody replies to NS).

I also think proxy for the PCoA may be required.
Adding one more case (eventhough probability is less), Some new node in
PAR's link
may try to configure PCoA.

But, when the PAR should start proxying may be a problem.

Thanks & Regards,
Subba Reddy