Subject: RE: [SeaMoby] Topic #3: Cache contamination

From: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:25:55 -0600

Eunsoo,
> The first topic is the main thing of this thread. I think the server
> approach cannot filter out false information or prevent cache
contamination.
> I think Dycard can make cache contamination very difficult.
>

AJOY->Why not ? I am confused here.  Could you please explain why do you 
think so?  

Regards,
Ajoy 

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

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:32:49 -0800

> AJOY->Why not ? I am confused here.  Could you please explain why do you

In the server approach, MN sends the L2 address of an AP to the current AR.
Then the AR retrieves the L2-L3 mapping entry from the server and puts it in
its cache.
There is no check whether MN received the beacon of the AP within the
coverage area of the current AR. So MN can send L2 address of any AP which
is registered in the server and thus the cache of the AR can contain all the
L2-L3 mapping entries even though some of them are not of CARs of the
current AR.

Obviously scope-id is not helpful in verifying the information from MN.

Now please can you explain how this can be prevented in the server approach?

Eunsoo

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:32:49 -0800

Eunsoo