Charlie Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello Thomas,
> > Consider the comparatively easy configuration where MIP is using > > global addresses for everything, but both sites happen to use SLs for > > some of their own internal stuff. When the MN needs to send an IP > > packet to a particular address, and it is a SL address, where does it > > send it? should it: > > > > - tunnel it back through the Home Agent? (I.e., assume the address is > > for a node at its home site) > > > > - send the packet locally (i.e, assume the packet is for a node on the > > local site) > What if the rule is that the mobile node tunnels when it is away > from home, and sends the packet locally when it is deregistered > and attached to its home network? I don't see the case where > that isn't a reasonable thing to do. The problem is that this doesn't seem to work in all cases. If the visited site is using SL addresses, the above rule means that the MN can't use them (for conversing with local nodes, at least not while using its Home Address). In other words, things that work one way for a regular node at the visited cite, won't work for the MN. That doesn't seem like a desireable property. > Our current restriction is that a mobile node that uses a site-local > home address also must have a site-local care-of address when > using that address. I think this eliminates the problem entirely. The issue I cite also occurs when neither the Home Address or COA is a SL, so I don't understand the above comment. > > Note that a fundamental assumption (at least in my mind) is that when > > one uses MIPv6, everything should "just work". SLs seem to introduce > > some problems here. > So far, when we have had problems, we have made restrictions > (as just noted) so that indeed Mobile IPv6 just works. Sometimes > the restrictions could be lifted by specifying additional protocol, but > at this point the amount of additional protocol is to be reduced, > even at the cost of some restriction. My comments were prompted by my reading of the MIPv6 spec. IMO, the SL wording there has problems. In a few places, it says things like "if you are visiting a network with the same site as your home, then ...". But, AFAIK, we have know of no way of determining what site a node is connected to when it visits some arbitrary link. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
