Subject: RE: [nemo] moving forward (was: no home network ?)

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 03:22:41 -0000

> >> an existing protocol?
> > 
> > 
> > I think a new routing protocol is not needed.
> 
> Me too, a new routing protocol is not needed.  Exactly per 
> your paragraph below.
> 
> There are more issues though on how to make an existing 
> protocol work over the MRHA tunnel (or other phrasing).  The 
> first thing that I would like to find is whether is there any 
> place where OSPF (example) was made to work over a tunnel.  
> Or maybe that is not the question.
> 
> 
Both PSBU and draft-wakikawa introduce a new routing protocol. The
argument is that a protocol such as RIP or OSPF may create an additional
control traffic overhead for a stub that will always be there, which
seems to be a costly overkill in some mobility situations. 

This is why I raise the point. I do not think it's that clear cut though
my mind is not made. Vijay's proposal seems to work fine with no
additional involvement on our part, but seems impractical over 9.6K GSM
or very little more GPRS. 

My point was mostly that *If* we decide that we need a simpler protocol
in terms of advertisements, routes and the redistribution stays the
same.

Pascal

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:45:29 -0800 (PST)

Maybe this is redundant with what Pascal raises, but
it seems that there are a couple of orthogonal issues
going on here:

1) How do we plumb a mobile network?
2) How do we distribute routes once plumbed?

I've always had it in mind that this wg was mainly
interested in (1) and that for (2(, nothing really
stops you from running IS-IS or OSPF or RIP or
whatever. The point Pascal brings up is
interesting though. It's not clear that what you
want is necessarily a new routing protocol so much
as compression and/or partitioning -- which sounds
sort of outside my understanding of the NEMO
charter, but might find an audience for a BOF
sometime in the future...

	    Mike

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:03:40 +0100

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>> Me too, a new routing protocol is not needed.  Exactly per your 
>> paragraph below.
> 
> Both PSBU and draft-wakikawa introduce a new routing protocol.

For the purpose of discussion, let's call a routing protocol something
that modifies the routing table, and that has prefixes in the routing
table.  In this context, contrast Mobile IPv6 that modifies a binding
cache (not the routing table), and that has full /128s in the binding
cache (no prefixes).

By this distinction, draft-wakikawa does fit both a routing protocol
and Mobile IPv6.

> The argument is that a protocol such as RIP or OSPF may create an 
> additional control traffic overhead for a stub that will always be 
> there, which seems to be a costly overkill in some mobility 
> situations.

Those are questions that are not addressed neither by routing
protocols nor by Mobile IP I believe.

> Vijay's proposal seems to work fine with no additional involvement
>  on our part

I don't think Vijay made such a claim? Vijay?

> but seems impractical over 9.6K GSM or very little more GPRS.

I don't know whether improving Vijay's proposal relying on GSM/GPRS
criteria is a good way to go.

Alex