Re: [nemo] NEMO RO problem draft submit

[Park KiYong <[e-mail]>]

Dear Alex.

Please, ignore my opinion.

I didn't think about the case that the MR moves from old Foreign Network to new Foreign 
Network.

I'll think over the solution.

Best regard.
Kiyong Park.

[e-mail] wrote:

> Dear Alex,
> 
> I have different opinion
> 
> If the case is MN behind MR, it is right as you said.
> 
> If the case is LFN behind MR, it can be solved by existing IPv6 techniques
> 
> the case of LFN behind MR must be routed through HA.
> 
> I think that the MR keeps home network prefixes it received from Home
> Network's Router.
> 
> And CN to LFN will be routed through CN-HA-LFN, because the MR did
> registration 
> request with its home network prefixes to its HA.
> 
> Although the network prefixes was changed and LFN's address was changed in
> new 
> network, the communication will be kept by 'Address renumbering mechanism in
> IPv6'.
> 
> Because of that, the communication will not be lost.
> 
> Please, reply me with your opinion.
> 
> Best regard.
> Kiyong Park.
> 
> Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Kiyong Park wrote:
> > > I already read a draft about the solution of NEMO RO problem using 
> > > Prefix Delegation Mechanism in IPv6 You can access it at : 
> > >
> >
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~jjeong/publications/ietf-internet-draft/draft-leekj-
> nemo-ro-pd-01.txt
> > > 
> > > I think it is abolutely correct solution of NEMO RO problem. Any 
> > > other opinion, it will be great to me.
> > 
> > Hello Kiyong Park.
> > 
> > IMHO it is debatable whether that PD with Neighbour Discovery solution
> > is a correct solution for the NEMO RO problem since we don't know
> > exactly what the RO problem is.
> > 
> > If the RO problem is that MN-behind-MR communication to CN goes through
> > HA (instead of directly) then yes, that PD solution is solving it.  If
> > on the other hand the problem is that LFN-behind-MR communication to CN
> > goes through HA (instead of directly) then no, that PD solution is not
> > solving it, because that draft does not describe how MR performs RO on
> > behalf of LFN (LFN does not do Mobile IPv6).  In my understanding.
> > 
> > Alex
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through CCLab web mail server
> 




--------------------------------------------
This mail sent through CCLab web mail server