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: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)"
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:00:22 +0100
Dear all:

I suggest you take a look at 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-
06.txt 
which has considerations for this problem. 

It is quite a bit late by if you think that some text is missing please
let us know. 

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: K.Kawaguchi [mailto:kawaguti@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:00 AM
>To: nemo@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
>
>Hi,
>
>Romain KUNTZ wrote:
>>
>> Sri Gundavelli wrote:
>> > Using a HoA from MNP introduces some interesting situation, when
>> > the MR returns home. The MNP is anchored at the HA and when the
>> > MR returns home, there is no routing state for that prefix at
>> > the HA. At home, is the MR a bridge ? Is the prefix split between
>> > HA and MR and MR and itself ? If some one case fix the text in
>> > 3963 and address all the issues, I'm ok supporting this. Currently,
>> > we dont support this.
>>
>> When returning home, the MR could configure an autoconfigured address
on
>> its egress interface and send routing protocol messages (section
5.8).
>> Are there any issues with such solution?
>
>If the routing protocol is indispensable, I want to know which routing
>protocol should provide.
>I think that default is necessary to secure the interoperability and
the
>NEMO connection test between many products. I think the default only
now
>to be acceptable, even if the default will be changed in the future.
>
>
>Best regards
>---
>Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI

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