[hipl-users] Re: HIP mobility testings
- From: Simon Schuetz <simon.schuetz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: HIPL Users <hipl-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 09 Mar 2004 11:20:04 +0100
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 20:19, Miika Komu wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Simon Schuetz wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > has anybody tested HIP Mobility in a different way than proposed in the
> > HOWTO?
>
> Yes, we have tried a multihomish like scenario in our demos:
>
> laptop oops:
> - interface eth0: initially up and connected to crash:eth0
> - interface eth1: initially down
>
> laptop crash:
> - interface eth0: initially up, connected to oops:eth0
>
> - base exchange is established between eth0-eth0 (public 3ffe::xx
> addresses)
> - a data flow is (nc or whatever app) established between the hosts
> - there is only one ethernet cable between the laptops.
> - the ethernet cable is between oops:eth0 and crash:eth0
> - oops:eth0 is configured down and the cable is moved to eth1
> - eth1 is then configured up and data flows again
Which IP did you use for the eth1? Same network or different network?
I think the difference is, that you have a direct connection to the
peer. Therefore, the routing table is updated automatically as you bring
up the interface eth1. In my scenario, only the route TO the router is
setup automatically, but the router is NOT automatically the default
router (to reach the peer). So the peer is only reachable after an
manual update (or dynamically through router advertisements) of the
routing table.
>
> Have you tried a DHCP scenario? That would be kind of nice.
>
> Mika will probably provide you some more detail...?
Other related posts:
