Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Mobile Routers support without optimization

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:33:47 -0700 (PDT)

>> 
>> But I thought we talk here Mobile Networks and not Mobile IPv6.  My
>> approach is to stay independent of the searches in the routing table.
>> I see this as having minimal impact on other things.  Or what did you
>> mean by "other protocols"?
>
>For instance, RIP and OSPF.
>

Not to mention BGP. Should a BGP autonomous system be advertising prefixes
for "care-of" subnets, i.e. subnets that get their prefixes doled out
to mobile routers when they arrive, even though there may be no 
mobile network there yet?

>Still, how should the MR function when it is at home? Then Mobile IPv6
>shouldn't do anything, should it? Who would take care of routing updates
>then?
>
>Personally, I would like to get away from that old behaviour (that a MN
>at home is just like any other node) and go for more homeless mobile
>nodes.
>

Agree 100%!

		jak

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Aug 2001 19:21:14 +0200

James Kempf <[email-masked]> writes:
> Not to mention BGP. Should a BGP autonomous system be advertising
> prefixes for "care-of" subnets, i.e. subnets that get their prefixes
> doled out to mobile routers when they arrive, even though there may
> be no mobile network there yet?

You mean that instead of a CoA, a visiting MR would obtain a CoP
(care-of prefix) and renumber its MNN's with it?

Alex