I assure you that it is possible to have a NEMO process inject routes in
an exact same fashion as an OSPF process and benefit from the same
triggers and redistribution mechanisms if applicable. This is what my
implementation does in IOS... The HA is definitely a router :)
>From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:32 PM
>To: Keiichi SHIMA
>Subject: Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
>Keiichi SHIMA 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.
>I think it is not right for HA to add a routing table entry upon
>reception of MNP in the HA. IT should add it in the binding cache,
>not in routing table.
>The routing table is a data structure touched by other independent
>software (ifconfig add, route add, routing daemon read).
>If MIP6-nemo software adds a routing table entry usually it has no way
>to trigger the routing daemon that reads that routing table. The
>routing daemon reads the routing table only once (when it starts up),
>creating other internal routing tables. If mip6-demo adds an entry in
>the kernel routing table then that will not be seen by the routing
>daemon. Which is bad.
>That's why I think the routing table entries between MR and HA must be
>there prior to starting up the mip6-nemo software. This is normal in
>a way: if the MR is at home, we want the HA to still route packets
>towards LFN, although no BU is sent.
>> # if I'm not missing something.
>> --- Keiichi SHIMA IIJ Research Laboratory <keiichi@xxxxxxxxxx> WIDE
>> Project <shima@xxxxxxxxxx>