At 2:18 PM -0700 5/24/00, Richard Draves wrote:
>This is a good idea, but I don't recall any text in the mobility spec that
>talks about the mobile sending packets to the correspondent by tunneling to
>the home agent. (The tunneling right now is in the other direction.) I think
>it would be a simple addition.
I recall this issue coming up for the IPv4 version of mobile IP, and assumed
it would apply just a much to IPv6. I really must start reading more specs,
rather than just assuming they contain what they ought to contain. :-)
I trust the Mobile IPv6 spec authors are on this mailing list and will
enlighten us at some point.
>But if the binding cache on the local server is working well enough to
>maintain the binding, and the mobile node sends a binding-update
>proactively with its SYN, then the home agent won't be needed. This
>should be the common case when the mobile node is initiating the
>communication.
A-ha, now I get it. Yes, that would work, subject to the correspondent's
willingness and ability to store the binding, as you mentioned before.
But I would expect (not knowing for sure because I haven't read the spec)
that there is no obligation on the correspondent to store all, or even any,
of the bindings it receives. Obviously, we hope most correspondents will
do the helpful thing, but particlarly dumb, lazy, or overworked ones
would be within their rights to ignore binding updates and always just
send via the home agent.
But I guess the point you were making was: if most correspondents do the
right thing, there will be many fewer occasions when a user-override
would be necessary. That I can agree with.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
