nemo@ietf.org
[Top] [All Lists]

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

Subject: Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
From: "K.Kawaguchi"
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:30:28 +0900
Hi,

Thank you for the opinion.

I understand NEMO doesn't provide for the routing protocol.
On the other hand, the test condition of IPv6 Ready Logo NEMO will be
fixed to the one routing protocol. However, please understand we don't
intend that one routing protocol be 'MUST'. Because the same routing
protocol is necessary to connect, we have to choose one routing protocol
for the test.


Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI



In message <4561A83F.20807@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo"
"Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" wrote:

> K.Kawaguchi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > --- 5.4.1  Mobile Router side
> > 
> > The NEMO Basic Support does not mandate a specific routing protocol
> >  though the support for some well known routing protocols can be 
> > expected from many implementations. ---
> > 
> > When products mutually try connecting, products need same routing 
> > protocol.
> 
> Yes, MR and HA shoudl run same routing protocol (if they use routing
> protocol).
> 
> > I want to learn what present well known routing protocols is. It is
> >  the present consensus rather than the specification.
> 
> My assumption is that in such a context (MR and HA of same domain)
> OSPF is best suited as routing protocol.  BGP is probably too much
> burden for smaller contexts where NEMO is pertinent.  I don't mean
> that BGP is prohibited by NEMO.
> 
> RIP is another interior routing protocol, but seems to be less
> preferred by recent (10 years?) deployments.
> 
> IS-IS was mentioned in earlier discussions too.
> 
> Just an oppinion, and there may be other routing protocols.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>