Subject: Re: draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha-01.txt (was: [nemo]Charter proposal)

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:00:30 +0300

Hi Ben,

> [Ben M]
>
> Simon,
>
> In your 1st scenario, consider a MR providing an access network on a 
> train,
> conceptually providing connectivity to possibly 100's of nodes. With 
> the RO
> system you propose, every CN that every node is communicating with 
> would
> have to be updated, every time the MR changed its point-of-attachment. 
> This
> would result in having to perform something equivalent to the MIPv6 
> Return
> Routability test (not a particularly lightweight procedure) with every 
> CN
> every time the MR picked up a new CoA. Then if you consider that the 
> train
> could be tarvelling at a few hundred Km/hr and handing off relatively
> frequently, what you get is a lot of protocol overhead (Binding Update
> Storms) when roaming. And that's without taking into account the added
> complexity of a Nested Nemo scenario, i.e. if a PAN got on the train 
> :).
>

i may agree with you that this approach implies quite some signalling, 
but what are the alternatives? publishing a route in the global BGP 
table for each home network? This may work, but i would suggest to 
seriously consider the impact on routing system scalability...
other options?
regards, marcelo

> Ben

---

From: "Ben McCarthy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:16:35 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 30 March 2006 11:01
To: Ben McCarthy
Cc: 'ml-nemo WG'; 'Simon Oosthoek'
Subject: Re: draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha-01.txt (was: [nemo]Charter
proposal)

Hi Ben,

[Ben] Apart from optimising the route between the MR and CNs or altering
BGP, then the other option is exactly what Pascal is proposing (switching to
a HA closer to the point-of-attachment to optimise the triangular route).
Apart from that...???

Cheers,

Ben