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

["Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[e-mail]>]

>
>>>>> Does anyone plan to write such an implementation?
>>>>>
>>>> [Pascal] Dunno. Don't ask me if I like it... But something like
>>>> that has to be done if MNs or hosts connect to the home link...
>>>> Part of the price to pay to support aggregated mode.
>>>
>>> I am not sure the aggregated mode is needed in order to allow the
>>> MNNs to connect to MR's home link.  It is sufficient to have an HA
>>> on the _MNN_ home link and when MNN connects to MR's home link it
>>> would send
>> BU
>>> to its own HA.
>> [Pascal] I'm not sure what you want to say there. Do you mean a MNN
>> that is also a MN?
>
>Yes.  I'm not sure what you mean by MNN?  There's only "MH", "MR" and
>"MN" that are currently specified, they run Mobile IPv6.  "MNN" is
short
>for "an MNN can be anything".
>
>I was saying I don't see the need for aggregated mode.  If the need is
>to allow nodes on the moving network to connect to the MR's home link
>then it is sufficient to put a HA on the link in the moving network
>where these nodes reside.  So when such a "MNN" moves from its home
link
>on the moving network to the MR's home link, it does BU with its HA
>(placed in the moving network).

[Pascal] Aggregated mode is when you want to configure the whole Home
Network on the Home Link, though it is an aggregation. Some people in
the group found that model more natural as an evolution from MIP6.

>
>I think it would be fair to mention which home network models are
doable
>with RFC3963 and which not.  There are applicability sections.  For
>section 6 "aggregated", it would be very easy to just say "rfc3963 is
>not implementable with the aggregated home model".
>
[Pascal] I would disagree with the wording. I believe you mean that it
takes more than RFC 3963 compliant MR and HA to implement aggregated. I
would agree with that, and there's text about that.
We're past removing this section now... 


Pascal