Subject: Re: [nemo] draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-01.txt

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:21:29 +0900

> > Another way to do it is for the MR to simply response with an ICMP
> > re-direct message when it looses its egress link.
> > 
> > The first way, the lost of egress link is transparent to MNNs.  The
> > second way, the MR inform MNNs that it has lost a route, and force MNNs
> > to re-direct their packets to other MRs.
> 
> The first way is included in what I called "communication between MRs".
> They listen each other MR's RA and set up tunnel.
> (If you think the term "communication" is not appropriate for this, i.e. just exchange 
> signaling for tunnel set-up, we may paraphrase it.)
> 
> The second way does not seem to provide mobility transparency to MNNs.
> So, it is not recommandable, IMHO.

Hi,

I'm a few weeks behind, processing my NEMO emails. Response to Eun
Kyoung's email dated June 24th:

Well, egress interface selection has nothing to do with mobility
management, thus nor eitheir with network mobility transparency.

But, of course, it would be desirable to achieve multihoming for MNNs without
requiring changes to their protocol stack. 

Thierry.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:21:29 +0900

Hi,

Thierry.