Re: [nemo] RE: draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-05

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> Note that NEMO does not require autoconf operations; and last 
>>> that I know, a Cisco router will not auto-configure an address on
>>>  a prefix that is shorter than 64.
>> 
>> You seem to imply that a router _will_ auto-configure an address 
>> from an RA with prefix /64.  YEs?  A "router" fixed or mobile 
>> shouldn't statelessly auto-configure an IPv6 address at all, be it 
>> prefix /64 or shorter, no?
>> 
> [Pascal] Alex, the Mobile Router needs to auto-configure an address 
> on its egress interface as it roams...

Right... I meant so too... my remark was not necessary in this context.

What stays clear to me about the aggregated mode is the following.

The aggregated mode is something not supported by RFC3963 because 
RFC3963 works when the Home Address is derived from the prefix on the 
home link.

draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-xx.txt:
"it makes sense for a Mobile Router to register using a Home Address
  from one of its own MNPs."

No, it makes no sense.

Otherwise I agree with you.

Alex