Alper, OK I was behind you folks are going where I would go. I would assume bind-update will update the correct topological one to use in the kernel that way the app does not have to be smart unless it wants too using a new api as you suggest. This way apps don't have to change as we begin to deploy mipv6.
I would suggest strongly we just have a good api draft and leave the rest to implementors and not try to parse this in the ietf and we all are not going to agree how we do stuff in our kernels anyway and we don't get into a 2 year debate like src addr sel. A simple api ext doc would be great. But not part of the advanced api. We need to ship the base and advanced apis now. /jim [Honor, Commitment, Integrity] > -----Original Message----- > From: Alper E. YEGIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:49 PM > To: Francis Dupont > Cc: Samita Chakrabarti; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Re: Proposal for MIPv6 APIs to > switch default source address selection > > > > > > In your previous mail you wrote: > > > > An alternative approach could be: If the application cares about > > the source address, it can use the Mobile IP API to > figure out which > > ones are home address, which ones are care-of address, and than > > explicitly "bind" the socket to the desired address. > IMO, this would > > also satisfy the needs of the Mobile IPv6 mobile node. > > > > => this is similar to what I implemented in the past. > > But a function giving the list of addresses with status is > not enough, > > the best is to give the home address and the care-of address for a > > destination. > > I see. When the mobile node has more than one pair of > home_address-care_of_address, then it won't really know which > one to pick. So, maybe, instead of exporting all this > information to the apps and giving them the control, it might > be better > to enable the app to say "bind this socket to any address, > preferably topologically correct (i.e., a CoA, or home > address when at home)". I suspect this is what Samita had in > her mind.. > > > As first info is getsockname() for bound sockets, > > I added a clone of getsockname() which returns the real > source address > > after MIPv6 processing. > > Or, don't change the getsockname(), but instead call > mip_get_one_mobile_node() afterwards to identify if the > address is bound to a care-of address. Note that this binding > can dynamically any time, and subsequent > mip_get_one_mobile_node() calls are sufficient to capture the changes. > > alper > > > Note this doesn't solve the need of a control for smarter choice > > between Co@/H@. I proposed some and implemented two: use > always the H@ > > and use it but a Co@ when the destination is in the same > link then a > > Co@. They were global (still better than none :-). > > > > Thanks > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
