Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Mobile Routers support without optimization

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:54:57 +0200

> > If the WG decides to go that path, which is definitely an option, to
> > be constitent with the above wording the WG needs to remove the "R
> > (Router)" bit from the binding update option.
> 
> I'm not sure how easy this will be since it's used in the binding
> cache too and from there into the modified Router Advertisement.
> 
	=> Which router advertisement ? I think you're talking about 
	a different R bit maybe ?
	Anyway, it's used in the Binding cache because it's in the BU, 
	so if it's removed from the BU it is removed from the binding
	cache.

> The latter should be kept, I think, being used by other things than
> the R bit from cache.
> 
	=> I've lost you here. The latter meaning the R bit?  what was the 
	former ?

	Thanks,
	Hesham

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Aug 2001 11:20:53 +0200

> 	a different R bit maybe ?

Yes, I was talking about a different R bit.

Fact is that there are 4 R bits: in BU, in proxy NA, in modified RA
and in binding cache.  The R's in BU and binding cache are related to
R in proxy NA and to R in RA.  While the R in proxy NA comes only from
the R in binding cache, the R in RA can come from other places.

Thus I think the R bits in BU and binding cache could be removed.

I was tempted to suggest removal of R from modified RA but that is
also used for building home agent lists and something else.

Also, I'm wondering if it's good to suggest "removal" or it's better
to copy paste it into a new draft and polish that draft.

Alex