[nemo] Comments on draft-leekj-nemo-ro-pd-00.txt

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com> Thu, 03 July 2003 17:00 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24656 for <nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:00:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y7RB-00081R-JU; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 13:00:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Y7QU-00080g-J3 for nemo@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:59:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA24606 for <nemo@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:59:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y7QS-0003D0-00 for nemo@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:59:16 -0400
Received: from motgate2.mot.com ([136.182.1.10]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Y7QS-0003Cx-00 for nemo@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:59:16 -0400
Received: from il06exr04.mot.com (il06exr04.mot.com [129.188.137.134]) by motgate2.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate2) with ESMTP id h63GxFnD012195 for <nemo@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:59:15 -0700 (MST)
Received: from thorgal.crm.mot.com (zfr01srv02.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.8]) by il06exr04.mot.com (Motorola/il06exr04) with ESMTP id h63FuLrN008461 for <nemo@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:22 -0500
Received: from motorola.com (test9.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.219]) by thorgal.crm.mot.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0AE2EC86 for <nemo@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:59:11 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3F0460DF.1040603@motorola.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:59:11 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021212
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: nemo@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.72.0.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [nemo] Comments on draft-leekj-nemo-ro-pd-00.txt
Sender: nemo-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: nemo-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[Chairs stop me if RO discussions not in context now]

Hello to authors of draft-leekj-nemo-ro-pd-00.txt.

I've read the draft, thanks for providing it.

I understand that the method offers optimal paths between MN's inside
the mobile network and CN outside the mobile network.  Figure 1 shows an
LFN, that is supposedly fixed.  Is the draft providing optimal routes
between LFN and CN too (or only between MN and CN)?  LFN normally does
not perform itself Mobile IPv6, right?

I don't understand why there is a need for a new ND option?  Couldn't
the usual RA be used by MR to put the delegated prefix in, and advertise
towards MN?

What happens when there are several fixed routers in the mobile network
and a MN would visit deep below one of those FR's?  Normally RA's stay
on a link, so the RA with the delegated prefix coming from up will only
be seen in the first upper link, not below.  Or maybe that is outside
the scope of the draft?

Alex
GBU