Subject: [Mipshop] questions of tunnel between PAR and MN in FMIP

From: chenhongfei <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:12:16 +0800

Hi all
　　
　　　　In FMIP, a tunnel should be built between MN and PAR until MN
completes Binding Update which is described in section 3.1. I have
several questions about this kind of solution. 
　　　　1. Each packet has new encapsulation header of IPv6 in tunnel.
So the packets may be bigger than the MTU of NAR or PAR. PAR has to
relay "icmp too big" messages from NAT to CN. CN has to change the size
of packets. And CN may not change the size of packets to original size
after MN completes BU. How to solve this issue?
　　　　2. The transmitting process inside router became more
complicate. A great many tunnels may reduce the performance of router.
Are there evaluation how many tunnel be built in PAR? The AR is not the
core router. Could the capability of AR comply the requirement of this
solution?
　　　　AR may not assure performance while a mass of handover occur at
specifically moment and AR is not a high capability router。
　　　　
　　    Best regards
　　　　Hongfei Chen
　　

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

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:00:57 -0700

Hi Hongfei Chen,

chenhongfei wrote:
> !!!!!!!!1. Each packet has new encapsulation header of IPv6 in tunnel.

I am wondering why is this any different from any other protocol that
uses IPv6 encapsulation (e.g., the HA tunneling packets from a CN to the
MN's CoA).

> !!!!!!!!2. The transmitting process inside router became more

Again, one could argue that HA is a router on the MN's home link. And,
it needs to manage tunnels which are perhaps longer-lived than FMIP
tunnels.

> !!!!!!!!AR may not assure performance while a mass of handover occur at
> specifically moment and AR is not a high capability router!#
> !!!!!!!!

This is implementation dependent.
I think the above two are also implementation-specific issues.

Regards,

-Rajeev

> !!!!    Best regards
> !!!!!!!!Hongfei Chen
> !!!!

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:00:57 -0700

Hi Hongfei Chen,

Regards,

-Rajeev