Section 5.2
A Mobile Router MUST implement at least one mode and MAY implement
both. In the latter case, local configuration on the Mobile Router
decides which mode to use. This is out of scope for this document.
If the Mobile Router Flag is set, the Home Registration Flag (H) MUST
be set.
If the Mobile Router has a valid binding cache entry at the Home
Agent, subsequent Binding Updates for the same Home Address should
have the same value as the value in the binding cache for the Mobile
Router Flag (R). In explicit mode, the Mobile Router MUST include
prefix information in all Binding Updates, including those sent to
refresh existing binding cache entries, if it wants forwarding
enabled for the corresponding Mobile Network Prefixes.
regards,
ryuji
On 2008/12/11, at 17:36, Romain KUNTZ wrote:
Hi Ryuji,
On 2008/12/11, at 17:26, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
For this purpose, the mobile router needs to act as a RFC3775
compliant mobile host before starting DHCP-PD. Why? If there is no
prefix, the mobile router cannot sends a NEMO-BU (i.e. R-flag set) to
its Home Agent. If there is no valid prefix for the mobile router, HA
returns BA with "Invalid Prefix" status value which is treated as the
fatal error in RFC3963.
I'd say the MR still sends a BU with the R-flag set and without the
MNP option, which will be considered as registration in Implicit mode
by the HA.
Cheers,
romain
On 2008/12/11, at 10:50, Julien Laganier wrote:
We had this discussion for a long time abd it has concluded some time
ago already: WG consensus is to use DHCP PD.
(w/o questioning the value of optimizing RTTs for a procedure which
isn't in a critical path, e.g., handover)
--julien
On Thursday 11 December 2008, Yungui Wang wrote:
Hello
Here is one comment about using MR-HA tunnel for DHCP-PD.
In this draft, the MR registration processing needs 3 round trip
between MR and HA. i. BU to HA; (getting and binding MR_HoA)
ii. DHCPv6 message over MR-HA tunnel. (getting MNP)
iii. BU to HA; (binding MNP)
While, if PD is combined within BU, it is only 1 round trip.
From implementation of viewpoint, the later seems well done prior of
the former. Maybe I have lost something, can anyone tell me the story
why we gave up the latter in the new version? Thanks.
B.R.
Yungui
----- Original Message -----
From: marcelo bagnulo braun
To: mext ; Julien Laganier ; Ralph Droms
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:02 PM
Subject: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt
Hi,
We now start the WGLC for:
DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO
draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt
Please send comments about the draft till the November 19.
Regards, Julien and marcelo
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
--
--julien
[ New email address: julien.laganier.IETF at googlemail.com ]
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext