Subject: [Mobopts] Re: Comments and reference for section 6.19 of draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements-01.txt

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:24:00 +0200

Hi Carlos.

> I have one question about Section 6.19. It says: "It is relatively
> straightforward to optimize bidirectional tunneling for moving
> networks [39] by using a single home agent and a single tunnel
> between the mobile router and that home agent". RFC3963 does not
> specify any kind of RO (the use of the bidirectional tunnel is no
> optimal), so I think you mean "It is relatively straightforward to
> support network mobility [39] by using a single home agent and a
> single bidirectional tunnel between the mobile router and that home
> agent". Did I miss/missunderstand something?

You are correct.  I changed it.

I also added references to RO solutions.

I am not so sure whether draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements-01.txt
should get too deep into the problem space of mobile networks.  This is
not its scope.  Given that the draft includes references to the RO
problem statement as well as to proposed RO solution, interested readers
may look up more detailed information in those documents.

Thanks for the comments.

- Christian

--
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> I have one question about Section 6.19. It says: "It is relatively
> straightforward to optimize bidirectional tunneling for moving
> networks [39] by using a single home agent and a single tunnel
> between the mobile router and that home agent". RFC3963 does not
> specify any kind of RO (the use of the bidirectional tunnel is no
> optimal), so I think you mean "It is relatively straightforward to
> support network mobility [39] by using a single home agent and a
> single bidirectional tunnel between the mobile router and that home
> agent". Did I miss/missunderstand something?
>
> I think that draft-bernardos-nemo-miron-00.txt could be referenced in
>  your draft when you describe the RO for NEMO consisting in the MR
> performing the MIPv6 signalling on behalf of the nodes of the NEMO.
> The approach described in the draft exactly consists on that.
>
> IMHO, some text could also be added about the NEMO-specific RO
> problem of nesting (mobile networks that attach to another mobile
> network). Do you think is appropriate? I think that could be also
> useful to add a reference to
> draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-00.txt. What do you think?
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Carlos J.
>
_______________________________________________
Mobopts mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:35:37 +0200

Hi Christian,

> may look up more detailed information in those documents.

	OK, completely agree.

	Kind Regards,

	Carlos J.

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: BFF1 7C7A 6AA7 BCE3 885A  4DF1 ED0C 5952 BF89 B974