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

["KyeongJin Lee" <[e-mail]>]

Hi.

Thank you for your attention.

> [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?

Our draft proposes RO between MN and CN.
The figure 1 shows an example of mobile network and the LFN is just an example of MNNs.
As you said, a fixed node does not perform Mobile IPv6, 
LFN and CN communicate each other by using bi-directional tunnel between MR and MR's HA.


> 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?

MN must distinguish between on-link prefix and delegated prefix. 
For the distinction, we can use new option or new flag.
In our another draft,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jeong-nemo-ro-ndproxy-00.txt
defines just a flag for RO in the prefix information option of RA .

> 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?

In our draft, it is out of scope.


> 
> Alex
> GBU
> 
> 
>