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

From: "Roberto Baldessari" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:20:30 +0100

Pascal,

thank you. It seems like the MANEMO matches what we are interested in.
How is the status of that? I didn't find material about.

Regards

Roberto

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:09 PM
To: Roberto Baldessari; nemo
Subject: RE: [nemo] Distributing the Mobile Prefix in the visited
network

>-----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: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:27:02 +0100

> How is the status of that? I didn't find material about.

Would dhcpv6-pd draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-00.txt match the interest?
The draft has text in it about AR distributing prefixes to a moving MR.
 It's not clear though whether session continuity is required.

Are you interested in session continuity at LFN when MR gets a new prefix?

Alex