Subject: [Mobopts] Comments and reference for section 6.19 of draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements-01.tx

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:49:01 +0200

Hi Christian,

	I have one question about Section 6.19. It says: "It is relatively
straightforward to optimize bidirectional tunneling for moving networks
[39] by using a single home agent and a single tunnel between the mobile
router and that home agent". RFC3963 does not specify any kind of RO
(the use of the bidirectional tunnel is no optimal), so I think you mean
"It is relatively straightforward to support network mobility [39] by
using a single home agent and a single bidirectional tunnel between the
mobile router and that home agent". Did I miss/missunderstand something?

	I think that draft-bernardos-nemo-miron-00.txt could be referenced in
your draft when you describe the RO for NEMO consisting in the MR
performing the MIPv6 signalling on behalf of the nodes of the NEMO. The
approach described in the draft exactly consists on that.

	IMHO, some text could also be added about the NEMO-specific RO problem
of nesting (mobile networks that attach to another mobile network). Do
you think is appropriate? I think that could be also useful to add a
reference to draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-00.txt. What do you
think?

	Kind Regards,

	Carlos J.

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A  4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974

_______________________________________________
Mobopts mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts