Subject: RE: [nemo] RE: about the Home Network Models WG item

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:52:02 +0100

| -----Original Message-----
| From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
| Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 2:17 PM
| To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
| Cc: BINET David RD-CORE-CAE; Daniel Shell (dshell); [email-masked]
| Subject: Re: [nemo] RE: about the Home Network Models WG item
| 
| Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
| > To my personal taste, it is natural to take the Home Address from
the
| >  Home Link in extended mode
| 
| I'm ok with this; but just don't call it "extended" IMHO, call it
| "normal basic".  Or maybe "NEMO-extended MIP Home mode", but that's a
| bit clumsy. IMHO.

The problem is that your proposal would duplicate all the extended Home
text, but the part that describe taking HoA from MNP. From a editorial
standpoint, it's a bit clumsy.

| 
| > and from the MNP in aggregated mode.
| 
| Pascal, the idea of having the HoA from MNP has an initial motivation
| different than building aggregated Home Networks.
| 
| In my understanding from verbal explanations, the idea of having HoA
| from MNP comes from ease of implementing a certain RO feature.  That
is
| not mentioned in the draft.
| 
| > But in both cases, the alternate is possible.
| 
| Let's get a feeling of why it is good to have a HoA from MNP, and not
| try to put HoA from MNP in all modes (simple, extended, aggregated,
| virtual) just because it is possible to have it.
| 
| > Specific support by the HA might be needed to enforce the related
| > policies, and that is not in the scope of basic.
| 
| Do we have an idea whether the NEMO Basic Support supports all modes
| described in the NEMO Home Network Models?
This is a good question. Applies to MR as well. The capability for MR to
switch to bridge mode in aggregated might not be there. The capability
for a MR to start/stop the IGP when at home might also be missing.
Enforcing policies is nice to have and things might appear to be working
without that feature. You definitely need a specific support on HA to
define Home in extended mode if you want the HoA from the MNP. By
default, HoA os from the prefixes on the Home Link.  

| > Should we leave that to the products or is there something we should
| >  standardize?
| 
| I think that if you know about a product that specifically supports
(or
| plans to support) a certain Home Network Model then please mention it,
| it is very important.
| 
| When you're asking on whether there is something to be standardized.
I
| think standard is better to have because inter-operability it
| facilitates.  At the same time this draft being targeted as
| INFORMATIONAL, its scope is supposedly (1) to advice network deployers
| about how to do a Home Network that works with the NEMO Basic Support.
| Or probably it aims to (2) describe existing deployments, positive
| experiences.  Or probably it (3) gives just "seed" ideas about
| directions of thinking of what a potential Home Network _could_ look
| like with no engagement of actual implementation support, just
providing
| new ideas for future protocol development.  These are three different
| goals IMHO.  But even so numerous be they, I do not think this draft
| proposes anything about inter-operability, standardization.
| 
| This is my understanding of the draft currently, but you may know
better
| about the intent.
Looks fine to me :)

Pascal

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:45:32 +0100

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> The problem is that your proposal would duplicate all the extended 
> Home text, but the part that describe taking HoA from MNP. From a 
> editorial standpoint, it's a bit clumsy.

I don't see anything clumsy in removing the last item "HoA from MNP" and
substituting the word "basic" for the word "extended".  It's quick.

> | Do we have an idea whether the NEMO Basic Support supports all 
> modes | described in the NEMO Home Network Models? This is a good 
> question. Applies to MR as well. The capability for MR to switch to 
> bridge mode in aggregated might not be there.

A router switching to bridge mode?  Can you be more specific on how
could a router become a bridge and why would it do it?

> The capability for a MR to start/stop the IGP when at home might also
>  be missing.

Yes, it is missing, which is yet another topic.

Alex