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

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:24:06 +0200

>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
>
>
[Pascal] Hi Marcelo,

Maybe being able to distribute the HA is a goal in itself, and the main
reason for doing so on a global scale is a shorter path between the
mobile nodes; so global HAHA is more of a RO thing than a high
availability thing. In the partitioned deployment that we elaborate on,
a site is primary for a range of prefixes, and thus the site should not
die. If you want to duplicate a site, you need to sync the copies with
local HAHA.

Pascal

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:33:54 +0200

El 29/09/2006, a las 3:24, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribió:

> availability thing.

so we do agree that the reasons for global haha are reliability and RO, 
right?

Regards, marcelo

>  In the partitioned deployment that we elaborate on,