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

[Ryuji Wakikawa <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex and Thierry

Please check the RFC3964 section3
We said
    "A Mobile Router has a unique Home Address through which it is
    reachable when it is registered with its Home Agent.  The Home
    Address is configured from a prefix aggregated and advertised by its
    Home Agent.  The prefix could be either the prefix advertised on the
    home link or the prefix delegated to the Mobile Router. "

Some advantages using HoA derived from MNP.
The operators do not suffer from matching HoA from the home link and  
assigned MNP.
We can save a prefix/64 for just assigning HoA to MRs.

regards,
ryuji




On 2006/02/15, at 12:12, Thierry Ernst wrote:

>
>> 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.
>
> According to me, this is not so clear. RFC 3963 is a result of merging
> several ideas, including the idea from Ryuji that the MR's HoA can be
> taken from the MNP. This said, I don't have the technical deepth that
> you have to evaluate if RFC 3963 allow it ort not.
>
> So, I cced Ryuji regarding this point.
>
>> 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.
>
> Well, to Alex it may not make sense. But it makes some sense for other
> authors of RFC 3963.
>
>> Otherwise I agree with you.
>
> Thierry.
>