Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
"K.Kawaguchi" <kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp> Mon, 27 November 2006 12:05 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GofEc-00044V-Qg; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:05:18 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GofEb-00042p-1R for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:05:17 -0500
Received: from yskfw1.ysknet.co.jp ([210.169.255.3] helo=ksns.ks.ysknet.co.jp) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GofEZ-0007lY-9z for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:05:17 -0500
Received: (qmail 17979 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2006 21:05:13 +0900
Received: from (HELO MIP6-236) (@) by with SMTP; 27 Nov 2006 21:05:13 +0900
To: pthubert@cisco.com, keiichi@iijlab.net, nemo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
From: "K.Kawaguchi" <kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp>
References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC031ABC4E@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC031ABC4E@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <200611272105.EBF04663.ULHBJXVB@ysknet.co.jp>
X-Mailer: Winbiff [Version 2.43 PL1]
X-Accept-Language: ja,en
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:05:11 +0900
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f49c97ce49302a02285a2d36a99eef8c
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, ""Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>" wrote: > 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. My example is an extended Home Network case. But, Home Address from Mobile Network Prefix (5.3 Home Address from MNP in draft-ietf-nemo-home -network-models-06). > > 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 I understand this case (thanks you). On the other hand, in the case Home Address from MNP. Does MR need to join in IGP after configuring the address at the home? > > > 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. Ok, I understand. This is the same also in the case from MNP, isn't it? Best regards --- Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI > > 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