Subject: RE: [nemo] Distributing the Mobile Prefix in the visited network

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:09:29 +0100

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Roberto Baldessari
>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:36 PM
>To: nemo
>Subject: [nemo] Distributing the Mobile Prefix in the visited network
>
>Hi all,
>
>I'm new of this mailing list.
>I have a question related to the Basic NEMO Protocol.
>The RFC says:
>
>"  A Mobile Router does not distribute the
>   Mobile Network routes to the infrastructure at its point of
>   attachment (i.e., in the visited network) "
>
>How should this be inteded? In case a MR distributes the Mobile Prefix
>in the visited network, in a way that the Mobile Network is routable
>directly from the visited network, is the MR non-standard?
>
[<PT>] The goal in NEMO was to move prefix around without any route
injection in the infrastructure. But there is no MUST or MUST NOT the
text you mention. 

Francis provided good reasons why this is not done, in general. The spec
does not provide the means for doing it, does not discuss the risks and
the consequences if this is done. It's just completely out of scope.

But it does not say, never to do it, either. An example where you might
do it is MANEMO, when MRs form a MANET for such purposes as route
optimization.

Pascal

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:56:07 +0900

> >How should this be inteded? In case a MR distributes the Mobile
> >Prefix in the visited network, in a way that the Mobile Network is
> >routable directly from the visited network, is the MR non-standard?
> >
> Francis provided good reasons why this is not done, in general. The
> spec does not provide the means for doing it, does not discuss the
> risks and the consequences if this is done. It's just completely out
> of scope.
> 
> But it does not say, never to do it, either. An example where you
> might do it is MANEMO, when MRs form a MANET for such purposes as
> route optimization.

The text is not explicit, but there is no point to do it WITH
NEMO BASIC SUPPORT RFC 3963 because "network basic support" has been
designed with some goals in mind, and with specific requirements (see 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-05.txt
section 4)

Particularly:

R03: All traffic exchanged between an MNN and a CN in the global
      Internet MUST transit through the bi-directional MRHA tunnel.

But, if you want to do something else than network mobiliy support,
there is no restrictions, currently. 

Thierry