Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Mobile Netwoks in MIPv6

From: Mohan Parthasarathy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:47:23 -0700 (PDT)

> 
> Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:
> 
> > Do we really need another draft ? From the discussions we had,
> > it looked like some clarifications are sufficient. At least
> > the mail from Mattias explained this clearly i guess.
> 
> I questioned if the MR must tell the HA what prefixes are behind the MR
> and mentioned that this must be known by the HA (and also the BRs) by
> other means (which we haven't figured out yet...).
> 
Are you saying the reachability advertised by the routing protocols
is not sufficient i.e how did it work when the MR was home ? Home
Agent is yet another router. Are we saying that tunneling the
reachability information is not optimal ?

-mohan

> The MN still needs to tell CNs about the prefixes, so the draft makes
> sense.
> 
> /Mattias

---

From: Mattias Pettersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:31:33 +0200

> reachability information is not optimal ?

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I believe the MR shouldn't tell the HA
about the mobile prefixes by _Mobile IPv6_ methods, but rather use
standard routing protocol messages (OSPF, RIPng, etc.). We both mean the
same thing.

As I wrote in another message, one option is to tunnel the routing
messages, if we can verify that it will work. The routing protocols were
probably not designed with this perverted network architecture in
mind... :)

/Mattias

---

From: Mattias Pettersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 19:22:03 +0200

/Mattias