Subject: [MEXT] draft-wakikawa-mext-haha-interop2008-00.txt

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:22:01 +0200

Hi,

again, good document, this is very good input for the disucssion

this is very clear and short description of the status of global haha

I recommend people to take a few minutes and read this cause it is a 
very input for the discussion.

one thing that i am missing here is an analysis of the 
issues/concerns/limitations of the approach.

Of the top of my head, i have a few questions right away. Would the 
deployment model of the global haha would be compatible with the 
avaiation model described in draft-bauer-mext-aero-topology-00?
I mean, in draft-bauer-mext-aero-topology-00, we have multiple ACSPs, 
and several ANSP and in order to obtain the ro benefits all of them 
should have a HA in them and then the assumption that all has are in the 
same admin domain will not hold any longer, i think. wouldn't this be an 
issue?

An additional issue pointed out by Jari in the Madrid meeting is that if 
there is only direct connectivity between the CN and the MR and there is 
no connectivity with the rest of the infrastrcuture, the haha approach 
wouldn't work, which seems an additional liability than the CR approach.

I think it would make sense to try to summarize all the pros and cons to 
have a good discussion.
 
one question:

In section 3.  Global HAHA Protocol it reads

   Routing Packets (3-4, 9-10 in Figure 2)

   The packets originated by the mobile node are always routed through
   the primary home agent as shown in Figure 2.  They are tunneled to
   the primary home agent to which the mobile node is currently
   registering and, then, routed directly to the CN.  The primary home
   agent does not have the state of the correspondent node and cannot
   forward the packets to the closest home agent of the correspondent
   node.

So, does this means that the haha approach does not optimize the path 
for packets flowing from the MN to the CN?
 From the draft it seems that the haha appraoch only optimizes the 
traffic from the CN to the MR, but i think i am misunderstanding 
something here...

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:38:46 +0200

Hi,

> traffic from the CN to the MR, but i think i am misunderstanding
I guess traffic to the MR still has to be routed over the primary HA,
and not over the one who receives the packets from the CN, because the
MR has an IPsec/IKEv2 session with only this primary HA?
At least until the HA switch message has been received and properly
processed at the MR...

Christian

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:01:21 +0900

Hi  Marcelo,

Thanks for comments! again;-)

arcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> should have a HA in them and then the assumption that all has are in 
> the same admin domain will not hold any longer, i think. wouldn't this 
> be an issue?

I didn't read that doc in detail yet..
let me answer these questions later.
> An additional issue pointed out by Jari in the Madrid meeting is that 
> if there is only direct connectivity between the CN and the MR and 
> there is no connectivity with the rest of the infrastrcuture, the haha 
> approach wouldn't work, which seems an additional liability than the 
> CR approach.

Well, in such case, how can you utilize CR for that?  Before RO, NEMO 
requires home binding registration.
If there is no reachability to HA, it's impossible to make communication 
from MR.

I don't think this is an issue here...
> I think it would make sense to try to summarize all the pros and cons 
> to have a good discussion.
I agree.

> traffic from the CN to the MR, but i think i am misunderstanding 
Since MR is always associated with the closest HA, the path between the 
primary HA and MR is shorten.
In addition, when the primary HA routes packets to CN, the packets are 
routed along the regular IP routing path.
This path must be the most optimized path on the Internet. (This is what 
MIP6 RO provides)

regards,
ryuji