Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo

[Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Romain,


On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Romain KUNTZ wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Being able to register an HoA from a MNP may be more important on the HA
> than on the MR, for interoperability purposes. This could bring a new
> option: being a basic feature on the HA, and a advanced one on the MR.
>

Using a HoA from MNP introduces some interesting situation, when
the MR returns home. The MNP is anchored at the HA and when the
MR returns home, there is no routing state for that prefix at
the HA. At home, is the MR a bridge ? Is the prefix split between
HA and MR and MR and itself ? If some one case fix the text in
3963 and address all the issues, I'm ok supporting this. Currently,
we dont support this.



> I personally like this way of configuring the MR, as the HA does not
> need to deal with 2 prefixes anymore (one to build the MR's HoA, and one
> MNP to delegate to the MR), and just need to delegate an MNP to the MR.
>

But, at a cost of configuration complexity. If are clear as how the
routing/configuration looks when the MR is at home, in this scenario,
I'm ok with this.


> FYI the NEPL implementation is designed to support also HoA from MNP,
> although a small bug prevents to do so in the current version (could get
> it working with a small fix).
>
> Regards,
>
> -- 
> Romain KUNTZ
> [e-mail]
>
>
> RYUJI WAKIKAWA wrote:
>>  Hi TJ
>>
>>  On 2006/11/09, at 4:32, T.J. Kniveton wrote:
>> 
>> >  K.Kawaguchi wrote:
>> > >  Hi Chairs and all,
>> > > 
>> > >  I explain the selection and the classification of test item on the 
>> > >  Logo
>> > >  test specification in section 7 more. And I add the Idea-5 in section 
>> > >  5.
>> > > 
>> > >  We want the evidence of the consensus/Idea that IETF NEMO WG agreed.
>> > >  If possible, please consolidate it at the meeting.
>> > > 
>> >  Hi,
>> > 
>> >  The list of items to go into your testing program is not a work item for 
>> >  NEMO, and although you can gather informal opinions from the list, there 
>> >  would not be working group consensus provided to any Logo or testing 
>> >  program run by an independent entity. It would be up to you to decide 
>> >  what features you want to certify for your Logo program.
>>
>>  Regardless of logo, it is true that the RFC 3963 is vague on this.
>>  MR can support either one or both configurations.
>>  I'm not sure whether 3963 will take "Hoa from home prefix" as a default
>>  configuration in future revision,
>>
>>  Regarding to the logo, you can pick one of configuration as a default.
>>  But before making such decision, you should check the below document too.
>>  Aggregated home network is one example to support HoA from MNP.
>>  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-06.txt
>>
>>  The current SHISA implementation supports only HoA from the home prefix,
>>  but we knew it's easily extend to support both case.
>>
>>  regards,
>>  ryuji
>> 
>
>