Subject: RE: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:39:22 -0500

Phil,

I'm sorry about not getting comments to you sooner. One point I believe
people have misunderstood about using the other routing protocols such as
OSPF and BGP is as follows:

I do not believe that people ever conceived that these protocols should be
used to distribute per-node routes. I do believe that some WG either in the
IRTF or IETF should explore how these protocols can be used to set up and
identify heirarchical adjancencies from a geographical point of view. I.e.
set up the fact that this subnet is next to another subnet even though they
are not in the same aggregate or administrative domain. 

I do agree that the stimulus for the installation and maintenance of the
per-host routes within a local context MUST come from an MM protocol and it
should be fast.

These existing routing protocols should be enhanced to allow tiers of
routers to identify the capabilities and route relationships of hierarchy,
adjacency to add a new dimension 
"mobile routing distance" to the routers' routing/policy tables.

This new information could be utilized by MM protocol daemons to do their
fast thing. I also believe that this information, in conjunction with
per-host routes distributed via the MM protocol to the  piers of a specific
tier of aggregation, would also get rid of the single point of failure
problem associated with explicit anchoring. 

If the routers know the piers of the tier and the geographical adjacency
vectors, then the MM protocol knows where to get directed to install the
redundant - yet finite and scalable - per node routes - no single point of
failure.

I believe OSPF and BGP would be fine candidates for this type of optional
routing extension. This particular signaling doesn't need to be fast. The MM
signaling does, though. I agree with that.

This would be extra work but you may wish to explore this concept as well. I
don't think anyone ever wanted to use these protocols for per-node routes
and turn them into MANET; however, by adding the vectors for these new
mobile dimensions to these existing routing protocols, it would certainly
facilitate and enhance an MM solution. You can also utilize the installed
base of solutions to handle any intra/inter-system security and routing
policy. It is a win- win situation. 

I do believe there is a market for an IP-based inter-system fast
micromobility. Re-use of the existing protocols where you can will help in
deployment and acceptance IMHO.

Thanks,

Glenn

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 1:56 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [seamoby] IRTF mm problem statement

Hi folks,

   a draft of an IRTF problem statement for host routing is now available
at:
http://www.diameter.org/draft-proberts-hostrouting-problem-00.txt.  I'd like
to run it by the working group before submitting it as an I-D.  All comments
and suggestions are welcome.  It would probably help if it had a set of
proposed deliverables.

Phil

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 07:36:48 -0700

> OSPF and BGP is as follows:

It seems like more of the comments that I have seen so far have been very
solutions based. Given that this draft is a problem statement to the IRTF,
which will result in a research project, should we really be getting into 
protocol details? At this point we need to kick off the research activities,
and try to stay away from how the problem can be solved.

So, let me ask the following question. Could the interested parties 
provide comments on how the draft could express the problem better, as 
opposed to how a particular protocol could, or couldn't, solve the
problem. 

Thanks,

PatC