Subject: Re: [nemo] Re: is global HAHA so complex?

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 22:11:05 +0200

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>> <snip a lot of good arguments>
>>> 
>>>> Anyway, i still argue that we need to flesh out the 
>>>> requirements
> that
>>>> gloablly moving networks have in order to figure out which 
>>>> solution are best suited for them
>>> Yes.  That's it exactly.  If we don't have a clear picture of the
>>>  potential users,
>> after all this long thread, i think that the case of globally 
>> moving networks on board of airplanes or other transportation 
>> mechanisms are a use case for which there is interest and that we 
>> could try to work on a solution for that.
>> 
> [Pascal] Yes, this is already in the NEMO requirements :)
> 
> " #  Networks of sensors and computers deployed in vehicles: vehicles
>  are increasingly embedded with a number of processing units for 
> safety and ease of driving reasons, as advocated by ITS (Intelligent
>  Transportation Systems) applications ([9], CALM - Medium and Long 
> Range, High Speed, Air Interfaces parameters and protocols for 
> broadcast, point to point, vehicle to vehicle, and vehicle to point 
> communication in the ITS sector - Networking Protocol - Complementary
>  Element, February 2005., [8]Ernst, T. and K. Uehara, Connecting 
> Automobiles to the Internet, November 2002.).
> 
> # Access networks deployed in public transportation (buses, trains, 
> taxis, aircrafts): they provide Internet access to IP devices carried
>  by passengers: laptop, camera, mobile phone: host mobility within 
> network mobility or PANs: network mobility within network mobility, 
> i.e. nested mobility (see [4]Ernst, T. and H. Lach, Network Mobility 
> Support Terminology, February 2005. for the definition of nested 
> mobility). "
> 
> But we can move forward and detail more if you wish.
> 
> Note that for devices like cars, they expect to rely on cheap common
>  devices such as 4G phones with some application capability built in
>  (like JAVA or .net). As a result, you can not do most of the 
> vehicules if you do not include 4G phones...

Well, there are devices that do WVAN and one can't place phone calls on
them; and pertain to vehicular stuff.  They're supposed to be cheap and
common.  HSDPA/HSUPA, wibro, wimax, and something called "something Air"
used in Japan.  In these cases they're just modems.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 22:18:54 +0200

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hi Marcelo;
> 
> There's a lot of good sense in your words; and I'd agree in general 
> terms.
> 
> Now please consider this angle: the design point we want to fix in 
> MIP6 is the Home Link, which is a single point of failure, a 
> bottleneck and anchors Home at a given location. We want to replace 
> the ND based operation by a protocol over IP and enable a real (site 
> or HA) redundancy using routing protocols.

Pascal, when they designed MIP they tried to address the locator-id
problem too.  For some reason that led to the home link being fixed and
people complaining about triangular routing which led to RO.  IF there's
something now to be fixed it's the RO, not the locator-id problem, which
is dealt with by shim6 anew, hoping that RO will be obtained as a side
effect.

> In other words, we want to fix MIP problems within MIP. Not to force 
> ISP to deploy multiple prefixes, and either SHIM6 or PRESENCE to fix 
> a limitation of another protocol. I do not think that HAHA breaks the
>  end to end principle. I think it obeys another principle, Give back 
> to Cesar what is Cesar's, fix a problem where it occurs.

SO who's Cesar and what does he own?

Alex