Subject: RE: [nemo] RE: about the Home Network Models WG item

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:13:06 +0100

| HA proxying for all addresses in all
| MNPs in its BC is something that can not be implemented.  Why?  At
least
| because proxy NA is sent periodically, becoming an overload.  Am I
| missing something?

Note that I'm not a promoter of that model from the start :) I agree
that the HA can not send the async NA for all the range of suffixes at
Home. It should just respond to NS. We can compare this with Dave
Thaler's work on spit networks. Alternatively, you can bar coming Home
in Aggregated. Anyway, the process is nit mandated by NEMO or any other
standard, so it would be a product specific support to get there.

| What does "HA protects the MNP space from autoconfiguration by
| uncontrolled visitors on the Home Link" mean?

MR binds MNP. Then, a node on the Home Link autoconfs an address from
MNP. HA should defend the address at DAD time. The trouble with
aggregated is that the whole aggregation is supposedly on link. Do you
have a rewording in mind?

| Is it that HA defends a certain HoA from a certain BC-registered MNP,
by
| sending proxy Neighbour Advertisements? ("defends" in that when a
| visitor tries to autoconfigure an address based on MNP, its DAD fails
| because of the NA sent by the HA on behalf of MR).  But how would a
| visitor on the home link autoconfigure an address based on MNP if that
| MNP is not present in an RA?  Or is anybody sending RAs on the home
link
| with the MNP?
| 
| Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:13:53 +0100

> standard, so it would be a product specific support to get there.

If compared to other works (split networks) then it should be referenced 
and made work with that model.  One thousand more lines make sure it's 
exactly the other work, is it worth the effort?

For hosts to autoconfigure addresses based on each MNP - who would send 
RAs for each MNP on the home link?

> have a rewording in mind?

I don't have a rewording in mind, sorry.  My only wording is that it 
can't scale.  You seem to say the same thing, so why re-wording it when 
we could simply remove it.

Alex