Subject: [nemo] Issue 6 - moving forward.

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:49:50 -0700

I had proposed the following text when Jongkeun 
first raised the issue.

    When the Mobile Router and the Home Agent exchange routes
    through routing protocol updates, the Home Agent MUST NOT 
    create routes to the Mobile network when the Binding Update 
    from the Mobile Router is received. The Mobile Router also 
    MUST NOT include any prefix information in the Binding Update. 
    Any routes to the Mobile Network are created at the Home
    Agent through routing protocol updates.

Ryuji later modified this so that the same prefix
is not conveyed both through the Binding Update
and an IGP update. you can do route updates through 
both mechanisms at the same time, but for different
mobile network prefixes.

   When the Mobile Router and the Home Agent exchange routes 
   of specific mobile network prefixes through routing protocol 
   updates, the Home Agent MUST NOT create the routes of the 
   mobile network prefixes to the Mobile Router when the Binding 
   Update from the Mobile Router is received.  The Mobile Router 
   also SHOULD NOT include the mobile network prefixes exchanged 
   by routing protocol in the Binding Update.  The routes of the 
   mobile network prefixes to the Mobile Router SHOULD be created 
   at the Home Agent through routing protocol updates.

I think this is a good compromise. I am fine with it.

but Pascal has an objection 

> It is (and it should stay) up to the admin of the router to decide, in
> case of a same prefix advertised by multiple IGPs, to select which
> source is preferred. The way this is done is implementation dependent.
> Because it is a router setting, not something in a protocol. MIP does
> not have to be any different.

Pascal favors not having any text at all.

any opinions on how to proceed?

Vijay