IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo

"K.Kawaguchi" <kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp> Mon, 20 November 2006 11:53 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gm7hw-0003TA-NS; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 06:53:04 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gm7hv-0003Rj-5l for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 06:53:03 -0500
Received: from yskfw1.ysknet.co.jp ([210.169.255.3] helo=ksns.ks.ysknet.co.jp) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gm7hs-0001S6-GB for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Nov 2006 06:53:03 -0500
Received: (qmail 28541 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2006 20:52:47 +0900
Received: from (HELO MIP6-236) (@) by with SMTP; 20 Nov 2006 20:52:47 +0900
To: pthubert@cisco.com, nemo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
From: "K.Kawaguchi" <kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp>
References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC030C3A82@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC030C3A82@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <200611202052.HAJ17677.BHBLJXVU@ysknet.co.jp>
X-Mailer: Winbiff [Version 2.43 PL1]
X-Accept-Language: ja,en
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:52:46 +0900
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36
Cc:
X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:nemo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

---
5.4.1  Mobile Router side

   The NEMO Basic Support does not mandate a specific routing protocol
   though the support for some well known routing protocols can be
   expected from many implementations.
---

When products mutually try connecting, products need same routing
protocol.
I want to learn what present well known routing protocols is.
It is the present consensus rather than the specification.


Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI



Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:

> Dear all:
> 
> I suggest you take a look at 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-
> 06.txt 
> which has considerations for this problem. 
> 
> It is quite a bit late by if you think that some text is missing please
> let us know. 
> 
> Pascal
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: K.Kawaguchi [mailto:kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp]
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:00 AM
> >To: nemo@ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >Romain KUNTZ wrote:
> >>
> >> Sri Gundavelli wrote:
> >> > Using a HoA from MNP introduces some interesting situation, when
> >> > the MR returns home. The MNP is anchored at the HA and when the
> >> > MR returns home, there is no routing state for that prefix at
> >> > the HA. At home, is the MR a bridge ? Is the prefix split between
> >> > HA and MR and MR and itself ? If some one case fix the text in
> >> > 3963 and address all the issues, I'm ok supporting this. Currently,
> >> > we dont support this.
> >>
> >> When returning home, the MR could configure an autoconfigured address
> on
> >> its egress interface and send routing protocol messages (section
> 5.8).
> >> Are there any issues with such solution?
> >
> >If the routing protocol is indispensable, I want to know which routing
> >protocol should provide.
> >I think that default is necessary to secure the interoperability and
> the
> >NEMO connection test between many products. I think the default only
> now
> >to be acceptable, even if the default will be changed in the future.
> >
> >
> >Best regards
> >---
> >Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email