""Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email protected]>" wrote:
> 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
> As Keiichi says there are 2 case.
> 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?
> 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?
> It can be expected that routing within a nested NEMO (MANEMO) will
> somewhat alleviate that restriction.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: K.Kawaguchi [mailto:[email protected]]
> >Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:49 AM
> >To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
> >"Keiichi SHIMA <[email protected]>" 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
> >> >>> 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
> >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