Re: [Mip4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.txt

["George Tsirtsis" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christophe,

Yes, I think your understanding is correct. Please review
draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa-01.txt and provide me (and/or the list) with
comments. I would appreciate it since we are now going to try to
progress this draft too.

Regards
George

On Jan 17, 2008 6:42 AM, Christophe Janneteau
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> John, Alex,
>
> My understanding is that the base NEMOv4 specification
> (draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.txt) requires double encapsulation to
> be used for the Foreign Agent CoA mode, but makes it optional for the
> Collocated CoA mode. In other words, in Collocated CoA mode, the spec
> allows (and actually encourages = SHOULD) the simple (bi-directional)
> encapsulation between MR and HA to be used.
>
> The double encapsulation is required in the FA CoA mode, to ensure
> transparency with respect to legacy (RFC3344) Foreign Agent. If simple
> encapsulation only would be used, the FA would need to be able to
> forward a packet addressed to an LFN address while only the MR's HoA is
> present in the FA's visitor list...and the packet would be dropped. The
> draft "FA extensions to NEMOv4 Base" (draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa-01.txt)
> aims at addressing this specific issue by defining extension to FA to
> make it NEMOv4 aware and thus allow the use of simple encapsulation
> (i.e. of the sole FA<->HA tunnel and nor more the additional inner
> MR_HOA<-->HA tunnel).
>
> Can authors confirm this was the intention of the two different specs
> (i.e. the NEMOv4 base spec allowing simple encapsulation for the
> Collocated CoA mode, while a separate doc specifying it for the FA CoA
> mode)?
>
> I have not checked the last version of the base NEMOv4 spec to determine
> if the current text is explicit enough about these aspects. John what do
> you think?
>
> Thanks
> Christophe.
>
>
> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> > John.zhao wrote:
> >> Hi,all In the section 7, to co-located mode MR, it seems that it can
> >> also send traffics based on the optimization and only tunnel once with
> >> the CoA as its source address. Right?
> >
> > Hi John, thanks for pointing this.  The intention is indeed to have the
> > simple encapsulation (optimization of double encapsulation) described in
> > a separate document and not here.
> >
> > I would like to know which paragraph in section 7 read made you think
> > optimization is used?  I would like to identify it and keep track.
> >
> > I could think of the following in section 7:
> >> For optimization, the Home Agent SHOULD only encapsulate the packet
> >> with the tunnel header (source IP address set to Home Agent and
> >> destination IP address set to CoA) for Collocated CoA mode.
> >
> > Also know that I'm not sure who/how/when can make modifications to the
> > document, since it's advanced a bit past the WG discussion.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
>     Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
>      Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
> Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/
>


-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/