Subject: RE: [nemo] Review 2 of draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-04.txt

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:57:26 +0200

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 5:07 PM
>To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [nemo] Review 2 of
draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-04.txt
>
>Hi Pascal,
>
>on 2005-09-30 11:06 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) said the following:
>>>>>>>Section 1., para. 2:
>[...]
>>>>>Slightly, but not enough, I think.  After trying out various
formulations,
>>>>>I actually think it would be better to reduce the paragraph to
this:
>>>>>
>>>>>   In order to read this document properly, it is important to
realise
>>>>>   there is a distinction between the concepts of Home Link and
Home
>>>>>   Network, and in a NEMO context these may not at all be
equivalent.
>>>>>   How the two concepts relate in a given deployment depend on the
>>>>>   organization of the Home Network, as described below.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [<PT>] What about:
>>>>
>>>>     In order to read this document properly, it is important to
realize
>>>>     that in a NEMO context, the Home Network is not bounded by the
Home Link.
>>>>     How the two concepts relate in a given deployment depends on
the
>>>>     organization of the Home Network, as described below.
>>>
>>>No - remember, this is at the very beginning of the document.
Reading this
>>>would still leave me wondering - what is meant here - bounded?
Physically?
>>>logically? prefix-wise?  what??
>>>
>>>My earlier suggestion still seems to me like a good one - would you
consider
>>>it again?
>>
>> [<PT>] The problem that I tried to change was in the comparison of a
>> Link (usually a L2 term) and a Network (usually a L3 term). I wanted
to
>> say that in MIP, the Network overlaps with - is congruent to,
whatever -
>> the Link. But in NEMO, the network is much wider as it spans the Home
>> Link and all the Links that the MRs carry with them.
>>
>> Could you then reword a bit?
>
>Hmm.  A first try - I'm not sure if this is good language, but at least
>I would be able to understand it...:
>
>   In order to read this document properly, it is important to realise
>   there is a distinction between the concepts of Home Link and Home
>   Network.  In a NEMO context these may not at all be equivalent -
>   quite to the contrary: in NEMO, the Home Network can encompass much
>   more than the Home Link, as it spans the Home Link and all the Links
>   that the Mobile Routers carry with them.  Exactly how the two
concepts
>   relate in a given deployment depend on the organization of the Home
>   Network, as described below.
>
>
[<PT>] 
What about:

   In order to read this document properly, it is important to realize
   That the Home Link and Home Network are not necessarily congruent -
   quite to the contrary: in NEMO, the Home Network can encompass much
   more than the Home Link, as it spans the Home Link and all the Links
   that the Mobile Routers carry with them.  Exactly how the two
concepts
   relate in a given deployment depend on the organization of the Home
   Network, as described below.
>[...]
>
>> [<PT>] Or we can change the figures to reflect the fact that one is
>> config and the other arrangement?
>> [<PT>]
>
>I guess that would be ok.  Although for now I think the simplest would
>be to just refer back to Fig. 2...
>
[<PT>] I do not have strong feelings on this. If anyone is still
listening, can you please provide advice here? Copying Vijay and
Ryuji...

>>>> Note that this is a hierarchy in terms of configuration, which may
not
>>>> be reflected in the actual arrangement of nodes at a given point of
time.
>>>> For instance in the Cab Co case, some Cabs might roam to a
different city,
>>>> or even attach to the Headquarters.
>>>> "
>>>
>>>Ahh!  *That* I can understand.
>>>
>>>Of course, I then wonder if that will actually work - what happens if
a Cab
>>>attaches to a HA in a different city which doesn't have a matching
prefix?
>>
>> [<PT>] Attaching is building a CoA, not binding. The CoA is formed
from
>> a prefix that is exposed by another city, and globally reachable, so
it
>> works. In terms of tunnels, it is an interesting story :)
>> I have deployed the whole thing using my implementation to check the
>> configuration. It works, cabs can be attached to other cabs, etc...
When
>> you add RRH to the picture, you can even have SFO attach to one of
its
>> cabs :)
>
>Hmm ,,,;-)
>
>Maybe some more words are needed to make this clear - could you have a
look
>at adding some?
[<PT>] 
[<PT>] What about:

Note that this is a hierarchy in terms of MR-HA relationship, which may
not
be reflected in the physical arrangement of nodes at a given point of
time.
For instance, in the Cab Co case, some SFO Cabs might attach to any hot
spot or
Cab Co office in a different city, and the SFO office might be at Home
if it is collocated with the Headquarters. But note that SFO might never
attach to
one of its own Cabs. This would create a deadlock issue, as documented
in
the NEMO RO problem statement.
[<PT>] 

What do you think?

Pascal

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:29:36 +0200

on 2005-10-03 17:57 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) said the following:
>>> Link (usually a L2 term) and a Network (usually a L3 term). I wanted to
>>> say that in MIP, the Network overlaps with - is congruent to, whatever -
>>   that the Mobile Routers carry with them.  Exactly how the two concepts
>    that the Mobile Routers carry with them.  Exactly how the two concepts

Congruence is clear to me for triangles, but not for networks.  I'd
rather not inflict that upon a reader this early in the text ...

[...]

> the NEMO RO problem statement.

That is basically in the text already - but pointing out the difference
between attaching with a new CoA and binding, and possibly how this
would work might be helpful.  The suggested text above didn't give me
any additional clarity...

	Henrik