Subject: RE: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:00:22 +0100

Dear all:

I suggest you take a look at 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-
06.txt 
which has considerations for this problem. 

It is quite a bit late by if you think that some text is missing please
let us know. 

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: K.Kawaguchi [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:00 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo
>
>Hi,
>
>Romain KUNTZ wrote:
>>
>> Sri Gundavelli wrote:
>> > Using a HoA from MNP introduces some interesting situation, when
>> > the MR returns home. The MNP is anchored at the HA and when the
>> > MR returns home, there is no routing state for that prefix at
>> > the HA. At home, is the MR a bridge ? Is the prefix split between
>> > HA and MR and MR and itself ? If some one case fix the text in
>> > 3963 and address all the issues, I'm ok supporting this. Currently,
>> > we dont support this.
>>
>> When returning home, the MR could configure an autoconfigured address
on
>> its egress interface and send routing protocol messages (section
5.8).
>> Are there any issues with such solution?
>
>If the routing protocol is indispensable, I want to know which routing
>protocol should provide.
>I think that default is necessary to secure the interoperability and
the
>NEMO connection test between many products. I think the default only
now
>to be acceptable, even if the default will be changed in the future.
>
>
>Best regards
>---
>Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI

---

From: "K.Kawaguchi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:52:46 +0900

Hi,

---
5.4.1  Mobile Router side

   The NEMO Basic Support does not mandate a specific routing protocol
   though the support for some well known routing protocols can be
   expected from many implementations.
---

When products mutually try connecting, products need same routing
protocol.
I want to learn what present well known routing protocols is.
It is the present consensus rather than the specification.

Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:06:07 +0100

K.Kawaguchi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> --- 5.4.1  Mobile Router side
> 
> expected from many implementations. ---
> 

Yes, MR and HA shoudl run same routing protocol (if they use routing
protocol).

> I want to learn what present well known routing protocols is. It is
>  the present consensus rather than the specification.

My assumption is that in such a context (MR and HA of same domain)
OSPF is best suited as routing protocol.  BGP is probably too much
burden for smaller contexts where NEMO is pertinent.  I don't mean
that BGP is prohibited by NEMO.

RIP is another interior routing protocol, but seems to be less
preferred by recent (10 years?) deployments.

IS-IS was mentioned in earlier discussions too.

Just an oppinion, and there may be other routing protocols.

Alex

---

From: "K.Kawaguchi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:30:28 +0900

Hi,

Thank you for the opinion.

I understand NEMO doesn't provide for the routing protocol.
On the other hand, the test condition of IPv6 Ready Logo NEMO will be
fixed to the one routing protocol. However, please understand we don't
intend that one routing protocol be 'MUST'. Because the same routing
protocol is necessary to connect, we have to choose one routing protocol
for the test.

Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI

In message <[email-masked]>
"Re: [nemo] About Test Specification in IPv6 Ready Logo"

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:43:32 +0900

> protocol is necessary to connect, we have to choose one routing  

If I remember correctly, running a routing protocol between a mobile  
router and a home agent is not a MUST item.

Some implementations may not implement the dynamic routing part, but  
we can still call them RFC3963 compliant.  The dynamic routing  
protocol test may be in the advanced test spec, but should not be in  
the basic test spec, I think.

---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <[email-masked]>
WIDE Project <[email-masked]>

---

From: "K.Kawaguchi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:41:02 +0900

Hi,

I do the supplementation explanation of Logo NEMO.
We will divide the category of Logo NEMO.
It is the following when enumerating it in the example based on
draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-06.txt.

models          | Home address from   | Home address from
                | Home network Prefix | Mobile network prefix
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEMO Extended   |           1         |         2
Home Network    |                     |
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEMO Aggregated |           3         |         4
Home Network    |                     |
----------------------------------------------------------------

The product of each area doesn't have the interconnectivity. Moreover,
there is not default either. Therefore, we divide separately on NEMO LOGO.
(A rich product will cover two or more areas.)

Because routing protocol is not necessary in area-1, routing protocol is
not put under the area-1 test condition.
Because routing protocol is necessary in area-2, one routing protocol is
decided under the area-2 test condition.
I'm sorry, we are examining many about area-3 and area-4.

Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 17:15:19 +0800

Hi,

>                 | Home network Prefix | Mobile network prefix

I think, there is no relationship between the mechanism to inject  
routing entries and the method from where we get a home address  
(either from a home network prefix or mobile network prefix).

We can put a routing entry either by statically or dynamically  
regardless of the original location of the home address.  So, even in  
the case 2, we can put a routing entry for the mobile network prefix  
by not using any routing protocol.  And of course we can use a  
routing protocol for the case 1.

---
Keiichi SHIMA

---

From: "K.Kawaguchi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:22:36 +0900

Hi,

> So, even in  
> by not using any routing protocol.

Please teach the method of not using routing protocol.
Is there draft or RFC ?

Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI

Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:29:43 +0800

> Please teach the method of not using routing protocol.

Since a mobile node knows its mobile network prefix, it can install a  
routing entry for it after it receives a binding ack message.  The  
home agent of the mobile node will know the mobile network prefix  
stored in a binding update message from the mobile node, it can also  
install a routing entry when it receives the binding update message.

I don't think there is a document that describes how the routing  
table is manipulated without routing protocols, but I believe most of  
the implementations do the same things as above, I guess.

---
Keiichi SHIMA

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:34:34 +0900

On 2006/11/25, at 13:29, Keiichi SHIMA wrote:

> Since a mobile node knows its mobile network prefix, it can install  
> a routing entry for it after it receives a binding ack message.   
> The home agent of the mobile node will know the mobile network  
> prefix stored in a binding update message from the mobile node, it  
> can also install a routing entry when it receives the binding  
> update message.

Some more minor additional notes...

The above example is for the explicit mode.  And if we use implicit  
mode, then these two entities already know what to do when  
registration completes.  So either using a dynamic routing or not is  
just a configuration issue for route management and it has nothing to  
do with the network model.

# if I'm not missing something.

---
Keiichi SHIMA

---

From: "K.Kawaguchi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:48:53 +0900

Hi,

> # if I'm not missing something.

I still have my uncertain point.
Please look at the following figures.

                   |
                   HA1
                   |
  -----+-----+-----+-----+----- Home Link: A:B:C:0::/64
       |     |           |
       |     |           | MR1-egress
       H     R(MR)       MR1
             |           | MR1-ingress (Home Address)
                         |
                        -+----- Mobile Network: A:B:C:i::/64

I agree as you say, HA and MR can install own routing table entry by
binding message. However, how do you tell it to other nodes on home
network?
How do you do when MR1 moves from the home link and the binding message
is completed? Also, how do you do when MR1 returns to the home link?

Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:31:57 +0100

Keiichi SHIMA wrote:
>>>> So, even in the case 2, we can put a routing entry for the 
>>>> mobile network prefix by not using any routing protocol.
>>> 
>>> Please teach the method of not using routing protocol. Is there
>>>  draft or RFC ?
>> 
>> Since a mobile node knows its mobile network prefix, it can 
>> install a routing entry for it after it receives a binding ack 
>> message.  The home agent of the mobile node will know the mobile 
>> network prefix stored in a binding update message from the mobile
>>  node, it can also install a routing entry when it receives the 
>> binding update message.
> 
> registration completes.  So either using a dynamic routing or not 
> is just a configuration issue for route management and it has 
> nothing to do with the network model.

I think it is not right for HA to add a routing table entry upon
reception of MNP in the HA.  IT should add it in the binding cache,
not in routing table.

The routing table is a data structure touched by other independent
software (ifconfig add, route add, routing daemon read).

If MIP6-nemo software adds a routing table entry usually it has no way
to trigger the routing daemon that reads that routing table.  The
routing daemon reads the routing table only once (when it starts up),
creating other internal routing tables.  If mip6-demo adds an entry in
the kernel routing table then that will not be seen by the routing
daemon.  Which is bad.

That's why I think the routing table entries between MR and HA must be
there prior to starting up the mip6-nemo software.  This is normal in
a way: if the MR is at home, we want the HA to still route packets
towards LFN, although no BU is sent.

Alex

> --- Keiichi SHIMA IIJ Research Laboratory <[email-masked]> WIDE
>  Project <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:02:49 +0100

Hi, sorry for interfering...

K.Kawaguchi wrote:
> binding message.

I don't think HA and MR should install routing table entries upon 
reception of BU.  These routes should be there prior to starting the 
mip6-nemo software.

> However, how do you tell it to other nodes on home
> network?

That is a good question.  If the route in HA is added only upon 
reception of BU then it means if MR1 is at home (if it rarely leaves) 
then there's no route in HA1.

R and H should have either a route pointing to MNP through MR1-egress, 
or simply a default route through HA1.  In this latter case (no MNP 
route on H and R), if MR1 is at home, HA1 should send an ICMP redirect 
to H and R indicating a shorter route to MNP through MR1-egress.

> is completed? Also, how do you do when MR1 returns to the home link?

Yes, good questions.

Alex

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:21:01 +0900

Hello,

> binding message. However, how do you tell it to other nodes on home

The routing policy to the MNP from other nodes than HA or MR are, I  
think, out of scope of the network mobility management.

They may use static routing.  E.g. R in the above example can install  
a static route entry "A:B:C:i::/64 => HA1".  Otherwise, HA1 and R can  
run a dynamic routing protocol that is the same as in the no-mobility  
case.

> is completed? Also, how do you do when MR1 returns to the home link?

No difference.  R can send packets that destination address is MNP to  
HA1.  HA1 will tunnel the traffic if MR1 is foreign, or will redirect  
it to MR1 if it is at home.

---
Keiichi SHIMA

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:48:50 +0900

Hi,

> reception of MNP in the HA.  IT should add it in the binding cache,

I don't understand that.  MIP6 or NEMO is a kind of dynamic tunnel  
setup and route injection mechanism, isn't it?  So manipulating route  
entries by MIP6/NEMO program seems natural to me.

> the kernel routing table then that will not be seen by the routing

Ah, it may depend on the routing daemon.  Some routing daemons can  
redistribute routing entries added after it is launched.  If we are  
using such daemon, the route entries will be propagated appropriately.

In fact, we have confirmed our NEMO daemon (SHISA) can run with  
OSPFv3 in some of our previous experiments.  The route entry to a MNP  
added by SHISA was distributed by zebra ospf6d in the experiment.

---
Keiichi SHIMA

---

From: "K.Kawaguchi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:25:26 +0900

Hi,

> it to MR1 if it is at home.

I see.
Also, there is the following route settings along RFC4191.

      ::/0 -> router HA1 with a Medium preference
      A:B:C:i::/64 -> router MR1 with a High preference

Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI