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

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:43:31 -0000

Let me try to present it with an angle: 

The draft introduces a form of routing protocol. Somehow, you come up
with new routes and you have to install and redistribute these routes. 

I believe there's quite a lot of work to get there. And that the issue
will be highly controversial. Please refer to the "BU adds routes
thread".

My suggestion for the working group is to agree upon a barebones -by
Michael's terms- solution for Basic Nemo based on TJ's consumer model.
You know, something like a MIPv6 host on the egress and a router on the
ingress, as someone (sorry I can't remember whom, was that Pekka?) put
it on the list long ago. And static routes in the Home Agents to the
Mobile Networks.

Is that enough for a real large scale deployment, maybe not. But it's
the common agreed upon ground based on which a solution will be
assembled.

In parallel, we can start listing the modules that we would need to top
of that, and sort out the most wanted ones in the ML. My initial
(unordered) list:

* Routing protocol between MR and HA 
=> new protocol? Adaptation of an existing protocol? 

* Mobile Prefix delegation

* Multiple homing - Multiple registration 
=> replacement of MIPv6-ND interaction by a multicast based HA-HA
protocol.

* RO inside the nested nemo

* RO to the Correspondent Node
=> pinpoint mobile network routes distribution in the infrastructure,
granularity problem
=> Correspondent Router

* IPv4 PAT NAT traversal (YES;-)

* Privacy

* ...

Thoughts?

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: jeudi 20 mars 2003 19:14
> To: Ryuji Wakikawa
> Cc: [email-masked]; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); 
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nemo] comments on 
> draft-wakikawa-nemo-basic-00.txt -> no home network ?
> 
> 
> Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
> >> IMHO, it is a really inefficient way of routing packets. searching 
> >> the binding cache for a route to the mobile network is  a lot 
> >> slower than having a routing entry in the HA's routing table. 
> >> (route lookup is faster).
> > 
> > 
> > Can you elaborate on the performance difference between binding 
> > cache and routing table? Processing steps of searching are almost 
> > same.
> 
> The only difference I can see is that an execution averages
> shorter times if you use an exact prefix instead of a 
> variable longest-prefix match.
> 
> Of course, it all depends on too many other factors that are
> very often overlooked in the implementation.  I don't think 
> we can use speed of search as a differentiator between styles 
> of writing specs.
> 
> Alex
> 
>

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:00:48 -0800

> => new protocol? Adaptation of an existing protocol? 

I think a new routing protocol is not needed.

if the MR is at a foriegn link, it turns off routing on the egress
interface. instead it starts sending routing updates through the
tunnel to the Home Agent. when it comes home, it turns on routing
on the egress interface. the tunnel to the Home Agent no longer
exists. routing updates from the MR (either through the
bi-directional tunnel when on foreign link or the egress interface
when on home link) automatically distributes routes to the Home
Agent and other routers on the home link.

the consumer case works perfectly for a PAN (personal area network).
for a large network like a cruise ship or a train, when there are
lots of mobile routers attached to it (and if each one wants to use
some different prefix), running a routing protocol through the
bi-directional tunnel is needed.

I agree with the rest of your mail, though.

Vijay

> Thoughts

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:32:31 +0100

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>> * Routing protocol between MR and HA => new protocol? Adaptation
>>  of an existing protocol?
> 
> 

Me too, a new rotuign 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.