Subject: Re: [nemo] Questions about draft-kniveton-nemo-prefix-delegation-01

From: Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:52:50 +0900

Hi TJ,

Sorry, I just found this unreplied mail in my mailbox.

T.J. Kniveton wrote:
>>>> - Also, I don't understand well the utility of the I flag in the  
>>>> Mobile
>>>> Network Prefix Option:
>>>>       Implicit (I): The (I) bit is set if the prefix is assigned  to 
>>>> and
>>>>       routed via the MR even if the prefix is not listed in explicit
>>>>       mode BU.
>>>>
>>>> No MNP options are used when the MR uses Implicit mode. So this  bit is
>>>> never used. Or does the HA has to use the MNP option and set this  bit
>>>> when listing all the prefixes owned by the MR ?
>>>>
>>> That's correct. The idea is to be able to explicitly list *all*  
>>> prefixes assigned, including ones that are bound using implicit BUs.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, but if the HA uses MNPO to list all the prefixes, see my  comment 
>> above.
> 
> 
> How does it relate to implicit prefixes?

No relation, actually
My concern is just that listing all prefixes with MNPOs may be redundant 
sometimes with the MNPCO options (I mean, the same prefix may appear 
twice in a MNPCO and in a MNPO). Maybe we should use MNCO option when 
sending a BAck with the S bit, and add a bit in the MNPCO saying, if 
set, that this MNPCO option is just for listing, not for delegation (and 
if not set, the prefix is for listing AND delegation). Just an idea, I 
am not sure it is efficient.

Romain