Subject: RE: [nemo] Re: RO for geographically dist'd HAs

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:35:04 +0200

>
>As a co-author, perhaps you want to point out where in the draft covers
>NEMO-specific content? You use the term MN/MR, suggesting that it is
>catered for mobile node (host+router) in general.
>
>
[Pascal] Hi Chan-Wah:

Please consider the text that follows

3.  Rationale for the proposed solution

   For the time being, the precise flows are not elaborated.  One idea
   is that a protocol such as IS-IS or OSPFv3 could help a lot, mostly
   in the registration phase.  Another is that HAs should be proactively
   preassigned to receive a given set of registration, in order to allow
   a certain degree of aggregation within sites and in between site.
   Finally, the concept of proxy is introduced to limit the number of
   primary sites (to 1?) and as a key element for an upcoming NEMO route
   optimization scheme, where routes can be exchanged in a trusted
   fashion between proxies.

The NEMO problem for RO is to provide a NEMO version of the RR test so
that the other party can trust that a prefix is over a RO'ed tunnel.
Global HAHA introduces the route projection in a trusted manner because
it does it in the infrastructure... If you consider the text itself, it
mentions MRs throughout because it was thought for NEMO.

Pascal

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:06:35 +0800

Hello Pascal,

> mentions MRs throughout because it was thought for NEMO.

Yeah, right, and isn't that Route Optimization?  If I understand the
intention of global HAHA protocol correctly, it is to provide (a) HA
reliability and (b) route optimization. 

So far nothing you or Vijay put forth had convinced me (a) is specific
to or at least of more interest for NEMO rather than MIP6.  To help you
along, I myself had put forth a NEMO-specific scenario (HA in a NEMO),
but it seems you guys are not even interested in it ;)

I agree (b) is of interest to NEMO, but as I say, why should NEMO-WG add
(only) this particular protocol to its charter?  And why a candidate
solution?  Why is it not "Infrastructure-based RO"?  And why only this
form of RO?  How about other forms of RO?  I'd reiterated my stand on
this a few times, and I say it again: I am all supportive of RO
solutions being added to the WG charter, but it should not be a single
candidate solution (like global HA HA).  It should be a few different
approaches of RO.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:41:33 +0200

> candidate solution (like global HA HA).  It should be a few different

again i fully agree with Chan-Wah here

Regards, marcelo