Subject: RE: [nemo] Route Optimization in Nemo

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:43:24 -0000

Hi Alex

> If I were to start a document, I would start 
> with defining the problem of RO

That's the draft I humbly started. Maybe that was unclear? My draft is
elaborating on the taxonomy of the RO problem space, since it has
multiple aspects in Nemo. Once this work is complete, I expect we'll be
able to write a problem statement, in which security and AAA will be key
issues. Then will be able to write requirements. 

What do you think?

Pascal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: lundi 28 octobre 2002 18:50
> To: Takeshi TANAKA
> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); IETF NEMO
> Subject: Re: [nemo] Route Optimization in Nemo
> 
> 
> Takeshi TANAKA <[email-masked]> writes:
> > For your "call for debate" in laying down the RO 
> requirements, it is a 
> > good idea.  We will try to write down something concrete for futher 
> > discussion in the mailing list.
> 
> Yes, it's good to have a rough idea about what are the RO 
> implications.  And I'm also interested in looking into the RO 
> requirements.  If I were to start a document, I would start 
> with defining the problem of RO before trying the 
> requirements.  For example a certain number of points of 
> triangular routing could be feasible, but no more than n.  So 
> we first must know exactly what is "number of points of 
> triangular routing".
> 
> Me too I'm interested in that, but it's maybe for later.
> 
> Alex
> 
>

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:58:03 +0900 (JST)

> > with defining the problem of RO

This is tough. How to define the problem without basing the arguments
on a solution ?  If the argumentation is based on a solution, how are
we sure we understand the problem space well enough ?

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Oct 2002 11:04:44 +0100

> we sure we understand the problem space well enough ?

So it's about iterarating between problems, potential solutions, back
to problems and so on.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Oct 2002 15:39:26 +0100

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]> writes:
> That's the draft I humbly started. Maybe that was unclear?

No no that was clear, and thank you for starting it at this early
time.  I read it, so there's at least one reader.  I also read RRH and
I'm going to describe it in a technical report as well.  (then
somebody else can describe my description and so on).

Frankly speaking, my problem is that the draft is already started and
it already has a certain flavor.  It has the tunnel nestedness and the
RRH bias.

If I were to start, I would start with the simplest common denominator
of all that's been discussed, something simple and easy to understand,
nothing new, no innovation.

Define "triangle routing", "dog-leg routing", RO, and their origins.

Make a few sketches with the classic Mobile IPv6 RO
problem, then add the mrha thingie, and then see another sketch with
several HAs and so on.

Then I would describe a practical case when RO is bad for when I go to
a conference and all my communication goes to home (because I use
VPN).

Then I would describe an exemple with practical case where RO-less
Mobile IPv6 can be bad for TCP.

Then I would indicate to the reader that those two problems are even
worse when the triangle has more than three corners (several HA's).

Then I would talk about nested mobile networks, with multi-homing,
where there are sketches with paths that are shortest than what
nemo-mrha proposes.  (you touch briefly the nested RO need).

Remark no new solution proposed, no talk about DHCP, prefix
delegation, no RRH, no HoTI/CoTI, no DSR, no too high bandwidth
consumption (how high?), no CR (Correspondent-side Router, Core
Router, FA?).

That makes up a table of contents, with a little bit of contents too.
Then I would reserve more than 15 minutes for formatting before the
deadline.

That's what my approach would be but it is most certainly different
than anyone else's who would have decided to start such a document.
So please take it as my humble oppinion only; and also as a statement
that maybe I won't write such a document :-)

Thanks,

Alex