Salah, thinking from another angle, i think the use of a HAO is universally more appealing especially during circumstances when the CN also happens to be a mobie entity present in some foreign network, communicating with our MN.In such a case both the MN and the CN will contain BCE (Binding Cache Entry table) and Binding Update List (BUL)
Any comments ?
Zarrar
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:53:01 +0300
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [mipl] Home Address Destination opt. header v.s. Type-2 Routingheader
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see your point Zarrar. It just happens to be that for replacing destination addresses there is an existing mechanism called source routing embodied by the Routing Header and so it gets used. This is not the case for replacing source addresses and hence designers resorted to defining a new destination address dedicated for this function (the HAO).Regards,Salah
Thanks Salah, but this exactly is my question,
From: zarrar yousaf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 1:37 PM
To: Buraiky, Salah M.
Subject: RE: [mipl] Home Address Destination opt. header v.s. Type-2 Routingheader
in both cases (Mn to CN and CN to MN), the HoA gets swapped for the Source address and Destination address......then why not use Type 2 routing header in both directions of communication OR why not use Home Address Destination Ootion in both directions of communications ??
Zarrar Yousaf
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:13:48 +0300
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [mipl] Home Address Destination opt. header v.s. Type-2 Routingheader
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,When MN to CN communication is direct (route optimization is used) then:- CN to MN communication uses source routing (type-2 routing header)- MN to CN communication uses the HAO (Home Address Option).Note that in CN to MN communication we need to translate the destination address: the CoA address is replaced by the HoA in the destination field, whereas in MN to CN communication, we need to translate the source address: the the CoA address is replaced by the HoA in the source field. I hope this helps. Thanks.Best Regards,Salah Al-Buraiky
Hi :
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of zarrar yousaf
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:31 PM
To: Mobile IP
Subject: [mipl] Home Address Destination opt. header v.s. Type-2 Routingheader
When I read section 6.4 and section 15.9 in RFC 3775 (MIPv6) ,
I don't understand why Type-2 Routing header is needed,
Could MIPv6 replace Type-2 Routing with Home Address Destination opt.
header ?
I have not found any explanation by using google yet.
Could anybody help me?
Thanks a lot.
Sincerely yours,
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces Check it out!
Get the new Windows Live Messenger! Try it!
Get the new Windows Live Messenger! Try it!
_______________________________________________ mipl mailing list [email protected] http://www.mobile-ipv6.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mipl
