Subject: [nemo] RE: some inquiries

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:43:10 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: KAI CHEONG WONG [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: jeudi 2 octobre 2003 16:35
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Subject: some inquiries
> 
> Dear sir,
> 
>    I am an university student in australia. Iam doing a research on
the problem of NEMO basic
> potocol whch is the drawback of double crossing over tunnel. It
happens when LFN decides to
> communicate with VMN in the same subnetwork such as in the train. It
is because the LFN dont
> know the VMN is on the same link, that means LFN will send packets to
the MR which forwards
> packets to its HA crossing the tunnel. After the HA received the
packets, it will send back
> to the MR crossing the same tunnel again. It leads to the
inefficiency. However, i have read
> the draft-ietf, it seems doesnt mention about that problem. I would
like to know more about
> the following,
> 
> 1, Why there exist the bi-directional tunnel between the MR and its HA
insteads of uni-
> directional tunnel? Can MNN such as VMN send the packets to CN using
VMN's home address as
> the source address and send it directly through the foreign link which
its attaching ?

Normally VMN creates a connected route to the visited prefix. If the
destination is on that prefix, then the routing should forward the
packet on link as opposed to via the tunnel, and SAS should make the VMN
select the careof as source. All normal business by RFC 3484. We thought
of writing down a few words on that but did not because it all goes by
standards.

> 
> 2, What is the FA of the VMN which attaching to the mobile network?
> 

No FA in MIPv6...

> 3,  What is the solution(based on NEMO basic protocol) which should
clearly address the
> problem of double crossing over tunnel?
> 
In a more complex topology behind the MR, it would be Route
optimization, if the LFN supports CN.

Pascal

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 16:43:10 +0100

is because the LFN dont
the MR which forwards
like to know more about
insteads of uni-
VMN's home address as
its attaching ?

No FA in MIPv6...

clearly address the

Pascal