Re: [nemo] RE: RO between MR and CN

[Masafumi Watari <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:34:06 +0200,
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Tania
> 
> I was thinking things like of snooping. MR might intercept all packets to LFN, recognize a HoT and keep it. I remember discussing that with Alex long ago... Anyway, we try to say "don't take that path" as opposed to describe a solution in details.

I don't think its possible to provide RO while keeping the RR function
of MIPv6 untouched.  It would probably require modification of the
packet at MR to use the HoA opt and the routing header for every
packet, if we want to keep the MIPv6 spec as is.

> It seems preferable, for instance, to establish a MR-CR tunnel and exchange fine grained routes for MNPs over the tunnel (route projection).

I think I agree on this.

Masafumi Watari

> Pascal
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tânia Pinto Calçada [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: mercredi 13 octobre 2004 13:16
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> > Subject: RO between MR and CN
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I am interested in route optimization between the MR and the CN. I read the taxonomy draft
> > (draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-02.txt), and several other documents related to RO:
> > 
> > draft-jeong-nemo-ro-ndproxy-02.txt
> > 
> > draft-leekj-nemo-ro-pd-02.txt
> > 
> > draft-na-nemo-gen-ro-model-00.txt
> > 
> > draft-na-nemo-path-control-header-00.txt
> > 
> > draft-wakikawa-nemo-orc-00.txt
> > 
> > ROProblem.txt
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I also read some threads of the NEMO mailing list http://www1.ietf.org/mail-
> > archive/web/nemo/current/index.html <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-
> > archive/web/nemo/current/index.html> , however I am still looking for a document that
> > describes a solution for the RO between the MR and the CN.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The taxonomy draft says at section 2:
> > 
> > "A major issue with this form of optimization is that the end-to-end
> > 
> >    principle of the MIPv6 Reverse Routability (RR) test is broken.  The
> > 
> >    RR test is meant to ensure the care-of address (CoA) and the home
> > 
> >    address (HoA) are collocated. With a mobile network, when the MR
> > 
> >    performs RO on behalf of the MNNs, the CoA in BU will be the MR's
> > 
> >    CoA.  Thus, a MNN is reachable via the CoA, but not at the CoA.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    Some tricks may be performed on the fly by the MRs but it seems that
> > 
> >    a clean MR-to-CN optimization for Nemo will impact the CN function."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Can somebody point the "tricks" that may be performed, or indicate a document that explores
> > this subject?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Tania Calcada
> 
> 
>