Subject: [nemo] NEMO Basic support - Route optimization

From: "Varaporn Pangboonyanon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:27:29 +0100

Dear all,

I have a question regarding to RFC 3963 in 'Appendix A'. I think here in
the NEMO basic support does not allow to have route optimization at the
CN. In the example (Appendix A) fig. 2, when the MR moves away from
HA_MR, route at HA_MR and CN_MR are set as 4::2 -> 7::2. This means
whether MR performs route optimization to CN_MR or not?

Best regards,
Pangbooyanon V.

------
Varaporn Pangboonyanon
University of Bremen, FB 1 - IKOM/ComNets
Otto-Hahn-Allee NW 1, 28359 Bremen - Germany
Tel.: +49 421 218 8264, Fax: +49 421 218 3601,
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:17:51 -0800

> whether MR performs route optimization to CN_MR or not?

Correct. There is no route optimization in RFC 3963.

TJ

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:20:17 +0100

Varaporn Pangboonyanon wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> I have a question regarding to RFC 3963 in 'Appendix A'. I think here
>  in the NEMO basic support does not allow to have route optimization 
> at the CN. In the example (Appendix A) fig. 2, when the MR moves away
>  from HA_MR, route at HA_MR and CN_MR are set as 4::2 -> 7::2.

Text "4::2->7::2" designates a binding cache entry, not a "route".
Meaning that CN_MR registers the Care-of Address of MR (7::2) as related
to MR's Home Address (4::2).  Not the Mobile Network Prefix, but the
full /128 address.  This is for when the MR acts as a Mobile Host, i.e.
applications running on the MR may benefit of Route Optimization with
the CN_MR (but not the applications running on LFN).

> This means whether MR performs route optimization to CN_MR or not?

Yes, MR may act as MH for its Home Address and Care-of Address, and
subsequently do Return Routability tests for these two addresses (but
not for LFNs or other MHs on the moving link(s).

Alex