Subject: RE: [nemo] RE: ro draft

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:02:02 -0000

> > > Which means we need to work on the problem statement first
(including
> > > analysis of the solution space), not on the solutions. So far, I
only
> > > saw solutions.
> > >
> >
> > Not really.  Pascal and myself has submitted the RO-taxonomy draft
which
> > is not meant to be solution, but more of a problem-space or
> > solution-space thingy.  An update would most likely be necessary to
> > further tune it to the current charter (especially to be in sync
with
> > basic NEMO solution), but as an co-author, I don't foresee the
document
> > to become solution-oriented.  It should stay on the path of
describing
> > the problem space.
> 
> OK, I haven't had a chance to read the document yet, and I missed the
> point it was not a solution document. The analysis of the solution
space
> will have to cover not only MIP-like solutions as this was aknowledged
> during the charter set up.
> 

Right. The draft is
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-01.tx
t 
and the prez we made at IETF 55 in Atlanta is
http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/ietf55/slides/NEMO-IETF-RO-Taxonomy-2
0021120-v3.ppt 
It's impressive to realize how many RO solution drafts were published
since then!

Realistically, there's a chicken and an egg problem between our draft
and the RO solutions being published, because you need to have an idea
of the possible solutions in order to list them. So there's no surprise
that the authors of the taxonomy are also the first who proposed
solutions for RO. 

Yet, it's impossible to guess everything that can be invented next. This
is why the draft scopes only at building the taxonomy of the problem
space, in a "split and conquer" approach. The taxonomy is not MIP-only;
for instance (AODV cloud + gateway) is part of a group of solutions
called "Internal Routing and gateway", while Hiroyuki's approach belongs
explicitly to the "Surrogate" group.

Since we published _00, more solutions were disclosed, and the draft was
updated once as new openings were raised; obviously, it could be
improved again, and we expect comments if someone believes that his
approach is not covered enough in the taxonomy. _01 is a bit old now,
but since there's no discussion over it, it's been left dormant.

Note that I started the effort based on the solutions we (in my group at
cisco) had brain stormed over. Since our conclusion was (: and still is
:) that RRH is the way to go for the problem it addresses, it's no
surprise that the _00 draft was RRH-biased. A part of Chan Wah's
contribution was to help unbias the draft. 

Also, the draft does not address only the pinball routing problem, but
attempts to list all the flows that could be optimized, as the slides at
IETF 55 illustrate.

Pascal