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: Keiichi SHIMA
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:21:01 +0900
Hello,

On 2006/11/27, at 10:48, K.Kawaguchi wrote:


                   |
                   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?

The routing policy to the MNP from other nodes than HA or MR are, I think, out of scope of the network mobility management.

They may use static routing. E.g. R in the above example can install a static route entry "A:B:C:i::/64 => HA1". Otherwise, HA1 and R can run a dynamic routing protocol that is the same as in the no-mobility case.

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?

No difference. R can send packets that destination address is MNP to HA1. HA1 will tunnel the traffic if MR1 is foreign, or will redirect it to MR1 if it is at home.

---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <keiichi@xxxxxxxxxx>
WIDE Project <shima@xxxxxxxxxx>




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