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

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:03:26 +0200

>
>I mean, my understanding is that the goal of global haha is reliabilty
>when you have has distributed geographycally, but this is still HA
>reliability, right?
>
[Pascal] Well no. reliability comes from local HAHA. Global HAHA
distributes Home Agents over a wide area. This is the main goal. We try
not to use the word RO because we do not fully optimize the path end to
end, but still, with global HAHA, it is possible to deploy Home Agents
in regions and thus cut the cost of the MRHA path.

On top of that, the concept of proxy Home Agent introduced in global
HAHA is designed for infrastructure-based route optimization, as
Chan-Wah points out. With global HAHA, that (non totally optimized) RO
is done WITHIN the infrastructure, where a trust model of some sort can
be expected between the proxies.

The NEMO specific point is that a proxy exposes an MR's MNP to other
proxies at the RO setup. Doing this solves a security problem that is
very difficult to tackle cleanly end to end, the problem of adapting the
RR test for NEMO prefixes.

Pascal

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:57:45 +0200

El 26/09/2006, a las 11:03, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribió:

> [Pascal] Well no. reliability comes from local HAHA.

So global HAHA is NOT for reliability?

>  Global HAHA

so the goal of global HAHA is to provide infrastrucutre based RO, even 
if the result is that the performance is not complete RO, this is the 
main goal of global HAHA? i mean, we need to distinguish which is the 
main goal of the protocol and how successfull is the protocol achiving 
the goal.

so the goal of global HAHA is to provide RO but it doesn't provide full 
RO (the reasons for this is the design choices made, e.g. it is based 
in the infrastrcuture rather than in the end nodes, which provides some 
additional benefits, but results in less than optimal RO), is this 
correct?

i mean if the goal of global HAHA is RO, then we need to evaluate it 
along with other RO proposals and figure out which are the best 
tradeoffs that we choose.

> RR test for NEMO prefixes.

as i mention, these may be excelent design choices and the resulting 
features may be what the wg needs. But what we need to understand at 
this point is what is the goal of global HAHA, RO or HA reliability?

If it is HA reliability, probably this work would need to be carried 
out in the mip6 wg, where they are working on the HA reliability topic

If it is RO, we should consider global HAHA as any other RO proposal, 
and we need to analyze the whole RO problem together, so i don't see 
any reason why include it in the charter as a separate item

regards, marcelo

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:15:17 +0200

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>> I mean, my understanding is that the goal of global haha is
>> reliabilty when you have has distributed geographycally, but this
>> is still HA reliability, right?
>> 
> distributes Home Agents over a wide area. This is the main goal. We
> try not to use the word RO because we do not fully optimize the path
> end to end, but still, with global HAHA, it is possible to deploy
> Home Agents in regions and thus cut the cost of the MRHA path.
> 
> Chan-Wah points out.

Ah, terminology... A "proxy HA"?  Is a "proxy HA" run Proxy-MIP?

> With global HAHA, that (non totally optimized) RO is done WITHIN the
> infrastructure, where a trust model of some sort can be expected
> between the proxies.
> 
>  very difficult to tackle cleanly end to end, the problem of adapting
> the RR test for NEMO prefixes.

That is a valid problem.  It's why RO for NEMO MR can't be designed as 
RR tests were for MIP6 MN.

However, not very sure what a proxy "agent" can become in the wider 
context of netlmm, mip6, nemov6 and pmipv6.

Alex