Subject: FW: [nemo] Ro beteween Cn and MR

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:06:44 -0000

Hi Wafaa

1) It would be nice if you could stick to plain text...

2) There's a lot to say about RO in the infrastructure. Please have a
look at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-02.tx
t

The RO you are talking about may take several forms:

- a better selection of HA so that the triangle (CN-HA-MR) surface is
limited (HAHA protocol)
- MR-CR tunnel, CR being a Correspondent Router
- MR-CN though I doubt it since this is about routes to MNPs
- MNN-CN, if Nemo is extended to MNNs. The RRH draft has an example of
that:
see A.1 Path Optimization with RRH in:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-h
eader-04.txt

I hope this helps :)

Pascal

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Wafaa Al-Salihy
Sent: mardi 16 mars 2004 04:13
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nemo] Ro beteween Cn and MR

Hi,

i'm still thinking about the RO between Cn and MR, if we have this kind
of RO so we don't
have problem of HA routing packets to Mnn, it will be from CN to MR and
to Mnn if i'm not
mistaken.

wafaa

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:13:46 +0100

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-02.tx

Yes, I think one of the first things to be said about RO in the
infrastructure is that it's called "routing" and that is often unstable
because of link failures and we don't want even more instability due to
mobility.  And only then comes RO into picture.

>  limited (HAHA protocol) - MR-CR tunnel, CR being a Correspondent
> Router

The term CR might look new, but it is not, and there is the ORC paper
and the BPA paper/report.  (Optimized Route Cache and Binding Proxy
Agent) to get an idea about what it is about.

> - MR-CN though I doubt it since this is about routes to MNPs

Depends, it is possible to have CN do RR tests for the Home Address of
an LFN and MR's CoA (the LFN that actually talks to that CN); it is not
absolutely necessary to have MR trying to convince CN about the entire
MNP, at least I don't see why.

> - MNN-CN, if Nemo is extended to MNNs. The RRH draft has an example
> of that: see A.1 Path Optimization with RRH in: 

Yes, that's another way.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:13:46 +0100

Yes, that's another way.

Alex