Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Mobile Router Route Optimization

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 08:32:05 -0700 (PDT)

John,

Good points.

The alternative, of course, is that the MR could run a NAT and all
the hosts behind the MR have private addresses. When the MR moves,
the MR can do route optimization for the external addresses. None
of the nodes behind the MR need to be mobile aware in this case.

The question is what has the larger downside: triangle routing or
not having the benefits of end-to-end, like push?

		jak

>From: "John Leser" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [mobile-ip] Mobile Router Route Optimization
>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 21:52:01 -0400
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
>Importance: Normal
>
>Hi folks,
>
>Just to throw some more fuel on the fire, I question the value of allowing
>an MR to bind anything other than /128 with a CN.
>
>As an alternative, let's say the MR, when it detects that an MNN is
>communicating with some CN, sends a BU just for that MNN's address to the
>CN.  In effect, it sends a normal BU on behalf of the MNN, but using the
>MR's COA.  The obvious downside is that when multiple MNNs are communicating
>with the same CN, more BUs will be sent.  (One BU per MNN, per CN, rather
>than just one per CN).   The two upsides are that CN binding cache lookup
>remains simple (exact address match), and that BU authentication isn't any
>harder than it is in the non-router case (MR must have whatever credentials
>needed to bind each MNN's address, just as it would for its own address).
>
>The MR would still bind prefixes with its home agent, which is much easier,
>assuming we expect the HA to have been preconfigured with the prefixes to
>expect from each MR.  This is the expectation, as I've gathered from
>discussion on this list.
>
>-John
>