RE: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
"Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Mon, 27 November 2006 10:14 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GodUx-0006mn-GP; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:14:03 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GodUv-0006ln-No for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:14:01 -0500
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GodUt-0002KX-5z for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:14:01 -0500
Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2006 11:13:54 +0100
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kARADrbW021701; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:13:53 +0100
Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kARADmx1003776; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:13:52 +0100 (MET)
Received: from xmb-ams-337.cisco.com ([144.254.231.82]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:13:48 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:13:44 +0100
Message-ID: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC031ABC4E@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
Thread-Index: AccRxnBJHlymv7AZTaizeBheFgWLoAAQaYjA
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: "K.Kawaguchi" <kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp>, keiichi@iijlab.net, nemo@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2006 10:13:48.0934 (UTC) FILETIME=[BAFC1A60:01C7120C]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4376; t=1164622433; x=1165486433; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Pascal=20Thubert=20\(pthubert\)=22=20<pthubert@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[nemo]=20About=20Test=20Specification=20in=20IPv6=20R eady=20Logo |Sender:=20; bh=r/qpbvsR2kUSw5jBe5qu7LBPuEOk3IZEPuId2RzMihQ=; b=HU8j+5qr+QGRgUgb/Sy93QChfaVEhwX1EA61dOM8meqDv4ThWR1sZAqXaQ8hZmC5U/4gGerS sVmxny3WObu5qmq3r3rMRQ2dKtfYGt+5TVivZvKGLZqn6AgcK0ycDtXt;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=pthubert@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 287c806b254c6353fcb09ee0e53bbc5e
Cc:
X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Hi: Your example is an extended Home Network case, and you have used a Home Address from the prefix on the Home Link. In that case, the HA expects that the MR is at Home when there is not binding, and it will deliver over the Home Link the packets routed via MR's HoA A:B:C:0::i. As Keiichi says there are 2 case. Implicit: HA knows A:B:C:i::/64 via A:B:C:0::i; if this is a static information (static or automatic route) then the HA keeps that route regardless of whether the MR is bound. The HA can share that information with other GWs on the Home Link using an IGP over the Home Link, but to keep it simple just assume that the HA is also the default GW in the Home Link. So if MR1 is at Home, the HA can still reach any LFN behind it because it has a static information for the route A:B:C:i::/64 via A:B:C:0::i and it expects A:B:C:0::i over the Home Link. If another MR at home needs to reach the LFN, packets will first reach the HA (default GW), and the HA will issue an ICMP redirect. MRs could also expose their prefix on the Home Link using RFC 4191 to save that flow. So MRs do not need to participate to the IGP on the Home Link, and that can be a benefit in a very large or very dynamic Home configuration Explicit: The route in the HA is associated to the binding. When the MR comes back Home, the route is lost and the MR needs to participate to whatever IGP is run at Home. The choice of the IGP is a configuration issue, it can be any of the usual suspects (OSPF, RIP, EIGRP, ISIS, you name it). It could even be a MANET :) The choice of the IGP and how you deploy it will impact the capability for your Home Network to handle/survive a more or less high rate of changes (routers in/out) What NEMO adds: NEMO requires that the MR presents itself as a router and participates to the IGP only if it is at Home. So either you have a dedicated interface for going Home or you have some dynamics in the behavior of the roaming interface(s) that can reach Home to switch between at-Home and Roaming profiles. It can be expected that routing within a nested NEMO (MANEMO) will somewhat alleviate that restriction. Pascal >-----Original Message----- >From: K.Kawaguchi [mailto:kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp] >Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:49 AM >To: keiichi@iijlab.net; nemo@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo > >Hi, > >"Keiichi SHIMA <keiichi@iijlab.net>" wrote: >> On 2006/11/25, at 13:29, Keiichi SHIMA wrote: >> >> >>> So, even in >> >>> the case 2, we can put a routing entry for the mobile network prefix >> >>> by not using any routing protocol. >> >> >> >> Please teach the method of not using routing protocol. >> >> Is there draft or RFC ? >> > >> > Since a mobile node knows its mobile network prefix, it can install >> > a routing entry for it after it receives a binding ack message. >> > The home agent of the mobile node will know the mobile network >> > prefix stored in a binding update message from the mobile node, it >> > can also install a routing entry when it receives the binding >> > update message. >> >> Some more minor additional notes... >> >> The above example is for the explicit mode. And if we use implicit >> mode, then these two entities already know what to do when >> registration completes. So either using a dynamic routing or not is >> just a configuration issue for route management and it has nothing to >> do with the network model. >> >> # if I'm not missing something. > >I still have my uncertain point. >Please look at the following figures. > > | > HA1 > | > -----+-----+-----+-----+----- Home Link: A:B:C:0::/64 > | | | > | | | MR1-egress > H R(MR) MR1 > | | MR1-ingress (Home Address) > | > -+----- Mobile Network: A:B:C:i::/64 > > >I agree as you say, HA and MR can install own routing table entry by >binding message. However, how do you tell it to other nodes on home >network? >How do you do when MR1 moves from the home link and the binding message >is completed? Also, how do you do when MR1 returns to the home link? > > >Best regards >--- >Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI
- [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Greg Woodhouse
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Thierry Ernst
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Keiichi SHIMA
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Thierry Ernst
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… T.J. Kniveton
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… RYUJI WAKIKAWA
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Romain KUNTZ
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Romain KUNTZ
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- RE: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Keiichi SHIMA
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Keiichi SHIMA
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Keiichi SHIMA
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Keiichi SHIMA
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- RE: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- RE: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Keiichi SHIMA
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Keiichi SHIMA
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… K.Kawaguchi
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… RYUJI WAKIKAWA
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… RYUJI WAKIKAWA
- Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready… Alexandru Petrescu