Subject: [Mipshop] FMIPv6: HI and HAck messages

From: Nicolas DICHTEL <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:34:17 +0200

Hi,

I don't really understand this part in the draft:
 Section 4:
  "The HI message contains the PCoA, link-layer address and the NCoA of
   the MN. In response to processing a HI message with Code 0, the NAR

   1. determines whether NCoA supplied in the HI message is a valid
      address for use, and if it is, starts proxying [6] the address
      for PROXY_ND_LIFETIME during which the MN is expected to connect
      to NAR. The NAR MAY use the link-layer address to verify if a
      corresponding IP address exists in its forwarding tables."

What does mean the last sentence ?
I was thinking that the NAR can check in its neighbor table if NCoA is
present. And so, reply a HAck with code 2.

Regards,
Nicolas

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

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:09:04 -0700

Hi Nicolas,

> What does mean the last sentence ?

I am trying to recollect..I think it is for a special case. If NAR is 
already
proxying the NCoA (retransmitted HI, MN coming back to NAR the
second time), then there will be an entry for NCoA pointing to the NAR's
own LLA. In such a case NAR should not reject it.

Anyway, I think this needs to be clarified. I will enter it in the issue 
tracker.

-Rajeev

---

From: Michael Ye <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:31:43 +0800

Hi Nicolas

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas DICHTEL [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Mipshop] FMIPv6: HI and HAck messages

Hi,

Michael>>Yes, when reply a Hack with code 2,Hack must include a another
NCoA which is checked In ND. And
Michael>>PAR must use this NCoA.

Regards,
Nicolas

Michael

---

From: Nicolas DICHTEL <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:37:06 +0200

> Michael>>PAR must use this NCoA.
NAR cannot perform DAD on the proposed NCoA. DAD takes time and draft says:

 "If Handover Acknowledge (HAck) message is not received as a response
  in a short time period but no less than twice the typical round trip
  time (RTT) between source and destination, or 100 milliseconds if RTT
  is not known, the Handover Initiate SHOULD be re-sent. Subsequent
  retransmissions can be up to HI_RETRIES, but MUST use exponential
  backoff in which the timeout period (i.e., 2xRTT or 100 milliseconds)
  is doubled during each instance of retransmission."

So, PAR will not wait no more that 700 milliseconds a HAck.

Regards,
Nicolas