Hello all and Dirk, I've been receiving the same messages while using Ethereal. However i'm running ethereal on CN and using ping6 messages (from CN to MN) to test route optimization. After receiving the home/care-of tests and the binding updates, two messages (one echo request and one echo reply) are received which contains the MN reply and CN request contain Destination option and Routing Header Type 2 headers respectively.
These two messages emulate route optimization exactly as stated in the white papers but then a Binding Error occurs. From what i further analyzed, it's true that MN stops MIPv6 operation and begins to route it's packets through HA; however CN continues to send its packets with the Routing Header Type 2. In conclusion, CN continues route optimization whereas MN routes its packets through HA; "semi-route-optimization"? Please advise. -- Sabeeh Siddiqui
_______________________________________________ mipl mailing list [email protected] http://www.mobile-ipv6.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mipl
