Subject: [manet] intermediate DYMO node as MANEMO Mobile Router

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:34:53 +0200

Ian, thanks for updating the DYMO draft with, among others, updates to
the intermediate DYMO node section 5.3.3.

I think it still needs updating, because the intermediate DYMO router
acting as a MANEMO Mobile Router should not send RREP to the RREQ's
Target Node (presumably this is the LFN) because LFN already has a route
to the MR (received either by RA as default route, or statically
configured) and because LFN doesn't speak DYMO anyways.  Currently the
DYMO draft says:

> The Intermediate DYMO router SHOULD also issue a RREP to the RREQ 
> TargetNode, so that the RREQ TargetNode receives routing information 
> on how to reach the RREQ OrigNode.

What do you think?

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:35:17 +0530

I am not understanding the problem. Can you please provide me with the
text to "fix" things for you?

Ian Chakeres

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:38:43 +0200

Ian Chakeres wrote:
> I am not understanding the problem. Can you please provide me with
> the text to "fix" things for you?

Replace the "SHOULD" with a "MAY" in the paragraph below?

>>>  TargetNode, so that the RREQ TargetNode receives routing 
>>> information on how to reach the RREQ OrigNode.

Alex

>> Ian, thanks for updating the DYMO draft with, among others, updates
>> to the intermediate DYMO node section 5.3.3.
>> 
>> I think it still needs updating, because the intermediate DYMO
>> router acting as a MANEMO Mobile Router should not send RREP to the
>> RREQ's Target Node (presumably this is the LFN) because LFN already
>> has a route to the MR (received either by RA as default route, or
>> statically configured) and because LFN doesn't speak DYMO anyways.
>> Currently the DYMO draft says:
>> 
>>>  TargetNode, so that the RREQ TargetNode receives routing
>>> information on how to reach the RREQ OrigNode.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>>  This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
>> System. For more information please visit
>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
>> _______________________________________________ manet mailing list 
>> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> 
>

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 15:45:30 +0530

In this situation if DYMO router don't issue a RREP, there is a good
likelihood that the destination's DYMO router doesn't have a router to
the source's DYMO router. If that happens, another route discovery
will occur, and route discovery is expensive.

I think you are misunderstanding what's going on. I will write you a
private email to describe normal routers' behavior while participating
in a routing protocol on behalf of their attached nodes.

Ian Chakeres