[nemo] RE: RO between MR and CN

"Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 13 October 2004 11:45 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17438 for <nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:45:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CHhYE-0006Ym-5B; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:44:14 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CHhPC-00047v-AM for nemo@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:34:54 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16292 for <nemo@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:34:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CHhZz-0002YY-W1 for nemo@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:46:08 -0400
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (144.254.224.150) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Oct 2004 13:47:17 +0200
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from xbh-ams-331.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 i9DBXYTB000225; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:34:11 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from xmb-ams-337.cisco.com ([144.254.231.82]) by xbh-ams-331.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:34:08 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:34:06 +0200
Message-ID: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC2C093A@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: RO between MR and CN
Thread-Index: AcSxFgjeV7NBR02LRcyLDmAOXQGd0QAAdRYw
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: tcalcada@inescporto.pt, nemo@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Oct 2004 11:34:08.0276 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D651540:01C4B118]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [nemo] RE: RO between MR and CN
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>
Sender: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.

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

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tânia Pinto Calçada [mailto:tcalcada@inescporto.pt]
> Sent: mercredi 13 octobre 2004 13:16
> To: nemo@ietf.org
> 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