RE: [mobile-ip] Re: hmip and mobile routers

["Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <Hesham.Soliman@era.ericsson.se>]

I don't know if this mail will make it, but I'll try.

I'm not sure who sent the original mail because I 
only received Thierry's response.

> > Section 6 describes a mechanism of how mobile
> > routers might be supported by HMIP. However, I
> > think there is a fundamental category error being
> > made here. Namely, it is expected that behind the
> > mobile router are, in fact, mobile nodes.
> 
        => There is no error in that. If they are not mobile 
        nodes then HMIPv6 does not solve that problem.
        Clearly there are two cases to consider, 

        a) the nodes behind a router have (H)MIPv6 implementation
        b) They don't

        HMIPv6 addresses a and not b. Thierry's draft 
        addresses b and not a. In case "a" if the MNs 
        use HMIPv6 they will receive route optimised 
        traffic. In the other case they won't
        Both solutions an definitely coexist. The MR
        can always update its HA with the entire 
        mobile network's prefix. Also the MN's attached
        to it can update the CNs/other MAP about their
        COA.

> > reason why this expectation should be made: there
> > is no reason why a non-mobile widget, say a PC,
> > should not be able to be attached to a mobile
> > router on a moving train. 
> 
        => Yes that's possible, we don't address this case. 

> As currently defined,
> > mobile IP is only a requirement if the device
> > (router, host) is itself mobile. I do not see why
> > we should expand that requirement to anything
> > which is *behind* something that is mobile. In
> > fact there could be a huge downsides to doing so,
> > not to mention a whole lot of uncharted territory.
> 
        => What is the down side ? This is an unfinished
        statement. 

> > Also: what happens if there is more than one
> > router in between MR and the stationary host
> > in MR's subnet? 
> 
        => The MAP option is propagated as usual.

> What happens if there's more
> > than one MR? 
> 
        => What happens if there is more than one AR ?

> What delineates "my" MR versus
> > somebody else's MR?
> 
        => What delineates my AR vs someone else's
        AR ? Not a MIP issue.

> > It's possible I'm misreading that section, but if
> > I am it's probably because the section doesn't say
> > what needs to happen when the mobile router itself
> > moves. 
> 
        => The section says that the MAP (MR) sends a MAP
        option to the "mobile network" with its on link
        CoA (LCoA) as the MAP address. 
        Does it need more explanation ? We can add 
        more.

> > However, even if nothing catastrophic
> > happens, my original issue still stands:
> 
> 
> > non-mobile hosts shouldn't be forced to become
> > mobile aware by virtue of a mobile router some
> > arbitrary number hops away.
> 
        => Does the draft say that ? Please let us know 
        where it does so we can remove that assumption.

        Hesham