[Mobopts] Re: Comments and reference for section 6.19 of draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements-01.txt

Hi Christian,

El jue, 06-10-2005 a las 16:24 +0200, Christian Vogt escribió:
> Hi Carlos.
> 
> > I have one question about Section 6.19. It says: "It is relatively
> > straightforward to optimize bidirectional tunneling for moving
> > networks [39] by using a single home agent and a single tunnel
> > between the mobile router and that home agent". RFC3963 does not
> > specify any kind of RO (the use of the bidirectional tunnel is no
> > optimal), so I think you mean "It is relatively straightforward to
> > support network mobility [39] by using a single home agent and a
> > single bidirectional tunnel between the mobile router and that home
> > agent". Did I miss/missunderstand something?
> 
> You are correct.  I changed it.
> 
> I also added references to RO solutions.
> 
> I am not so sure whether draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements-01.txt
> should get too deep into the problem space of mobile networks.  This is
> not its scope.  Given that the draft includes references to the RO
> problem statement as well as to proposed RO solution, interested readers
> may look up more detailed information in those documents.

	OK, completely agree.

	Kind Regards,

	Carlos J.

> 
> Thanks for the comments.
> 
> - Christian
> 
> --
> Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe
> www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/
> 
> 
> 
> Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > I have one question about Section 6.19. It says: "It is relatively
> > straightforward to optimize bidirectional tunneling for moving
> > networks [39] by using a single home agent and a single tunnel
> > between the mobile router and that home agent". RFC3963 does not
> > specify any kind of RO (the use of the bidirectional tunnel is no
> > optimal), so I think you mean "It is relatively straightforward to
> > support network mobility [39] by using a single home agent and a
> > single bidirectional tunnel between the mobile router and that home
> > agent". Did I miss/missunderstand something?
> >
> > I think that draft-bernardos-nemo-miron-00.txt could be referenced in
> >  your draft when you describe the RO for NEMO consisting in the MR
> > performing the MIPv6 signalling on behalf of the nodes of the NEMO.
> > The approach described in the draft exactly consists on that.
> >
> > IMHO, some text could also be added about the NEMO-specific RO
> > problem of nesting (mobile networks that attach to another mobile
> > network). Do you think is appropriate? I think that could be also
> > useful to add a reference to
> > draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-00.txt. What do you think?
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Carlos J.
> >
-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A  4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974

[Mobopts] Re: Comments and reference for section 6.19 of draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements-01.txt

Attachment: signature.asc