|
|
Hi,
> 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 ?
Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI
"Keiichi SHIMA <keiichi@xxxxxxxxxx>" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2006/11/21, at 18:41, K.Kawaguchi wrote:
>
> > models | Home address from | Home address from
> > | Home network Prefix | Mobile network prefix
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > NEMO Extended | 1 | 2
> > Home Network | |
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > NEMO Aggregated | 3 | 4
> > Home Network | |
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > The product of each area doesn't have the interconnectivity. Moreover,
> > there is not default either. Therefore, we divide separately on
> > NEMO LOGO.
> > (A rich product will cover two or more areas.)
> >
> > Because routing protocol is not necessary in area-1, routing
> > protocol is
> > not put under the area-1 test condition.
> > Because routing protocol is necessary in area-2, one routing
> > protocol is
> > decided under the area-2 test condition.
>
> I think, there is no relationship between the mechanism to inject
> routing entries and the method from where we get a home address
> (either from a home network prefix or mobile network prefix).
>
> We can put a routing entry either by statically or dynamically
> regardless of the original location of the home address. So, even in
> the case 2, we can put a routing entry for the mobile network prefix
> by not using any routing protocol. And of course we can use a
> routing protocol for the case 1.
>
> ---
> Keiichi SHIMA
> IIJ Research Laboratory <keiichi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> WIDE Project <shima@xxxxxxxxxx>
Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI
|
|