At 2:11 PM -0700 5/29/01, Michael Thomas wrote:
> I don't think there are any answers for this at
> within mipv6.
Last time I looked, the Mobile IPv6 spec dealt with mobile hosts only,
not mobile routers. If that's still true, it's unsurprising that
it doesn't handle your scenario -- that would be the responsibility
of a (future) Mobile IPv6 Router spec.
> This is mostly a mipv6 issue, but suppose you have:
>
> MN------->MR------------------------>CN
>
> When the mobile node moves, it sends a BU to the CN.
> When the mobile router moves, it too sends a BU to the CN.
>
> The CN now has a binding entry for both the mobile node
> and the mobile router in its cache. Now if this
> is going to work at all (which I think is the $64
> "if") CN would need to construct a packet like:
>
> IP: dst=CoA(mr); RH: dst=CoA(mn); RH: dst=Home(mn);
>
> to prevent the packet from going through the
> home agent of either the MN or MR.
>
> Yet, MN and MR might know nothing about each
> other (the general case, I'd think) and CN
> doesn't have any clue about the far end
> topology either. It just has two binding
> entries in its binding cache with no way
> to correlate them, let alone set the proper
> ordering.
Presumably, to make this work, the BU from the mobile router to the CN
would have to include the address prefix(es) reachable via the mobile
router (i.e., the mobile subnet or larger aggregate that the mobile
router is supposed to serve). With that info, the CN would be able to
tell that the mobile host address falls within the address block served
by the mobile router, and could build the necessary header chain.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
