Subject: [nemo] Multiple egress/homeing operations in MRTP/PSBU

From: Koshiro MITSUYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 11:47:14 +0900

Hi all, 

I've read TJ's draft and thought about the operations of multi-
egress/homing in MRTP/PSBU.

Let me summarize it.

----------
Tarzan

  - a MR has CoA1, CoA2 and a Prefix, And there is a sigle HA.

  If a MR has 2 CoA, MR bind only the primary one.  If CoA1 is
  primary, then MR sends BU using CoA1.

----------
Jet-Set

  - a MR has CoA1, CoA2 and a Prefix, And there are HA1 and HA2.

  Maybe a MR know the list of HAs by using DHAAD, and MR will decide
  that the primary CoA to each HA. If MR decide that CoA1 is primary
  to HA1, then MR sends BU using CoA1 to HA1. And MR decide that CoA2
  is primary to HA2, then MR sends BU using CoA2 to HA2. May be we can
  keep suck kind of BU list.

----------
Shinkansen

  - MR1 has CoA1, MR2 has CoA2 and a Prefix advertised by MR1 and
    MR2. And there is a HA.

  Each MR register own BU to a HA. HA has two binding corresponding to
  Prefix. HA choose the binding by using round-robin algorism.

----------
Double-bed

  - MR1 has CoA1 and advertise Prefix1, MR2 has CoA2 and advertise
    Prefix2. And there is a HA.

  Each MR register own BU to a HA. HA has two binding Prefix1->CoA1
  and Prefix2->CoA2. MNNs act source address selection.

thanks,
Koshiro

---

From: Koshiro MITSUYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 15:59:37 +0900

Dear all,

I've received some questions, and Let me update my document.

At Wed, 07 May 2003 11:47:14 +0900,
> egress/homing in MRTP/PSBU.

Multiple egress vs multihoming operations in MRTP/PSBU

If I feel the specification is out of scope in NEMO Basic support,
then I put "<extension></extension>".

----------
Tarzan

  <extension>
  We can use same mechanism as "draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa"
  for Load Sharing.  Please refer to [1].
  </extension>

----------
Jet-Set

  keep such kind of BU list.
  
  If you don't have any policy to decide the primary one, it's gonna
  be same case as source address selection, like round-robin
  algorithm.

  <extension>
  we can chose a primary CoA with some policy from there restriction
  [security, access control, reachability,...].  In this case, we may
  investigate new specification to nemo spec. For exmaple, MR has this
  kind of policy,

  priority | high         low
  ---------|--------------------------
     HA1   | WirelessLAN  PDC    
     HA2   | PDC          WirelessLAN

  When WirelessLAN and PDC are available, the primary CoA for HA1 is
  CoA of WirelessLAN, and the primary for HA2 is CoA of PDC. When
  WirelessLAN is down, the primary CoA for HA1 will be CoA of PDC.
  </extension>

----------
Shinkansen

  Each MR register own BU to a HA. HA has two binding corresponding to
  a Prefix. HA choose the binding by using round-robin algorism.
  FOr example, MR1 has H@1, MR2 has H@2, then a HA has following BC.

  MIP binding cache
    H@1 -> CoA1
    H@2 -> CoA2

  NEMO binding cache
    Prefix -> H@1 (use round
    Prefix -> H@2  robin algorism)

  If a HA receive a packet destinated to example::beef. HA search
  example::beef in NEMO binding cache at first, If found, search
  corresponding H@ in MIP binding cache and act as NEMO HA.  If not
  found, search example::beef in MIP binding cache and act as MIP HA.

  <extension>
  One idea of Load Sharing, a HA has the policy to decide which MR is
  higher. Maybe a operator of HA set the priority statically, like MR1
  is higher than MR2.

  If users/owner of MR want to decide the priority statically, users
  can put the policy to each MR, and MRs can send BU with the
  priority. 

  If you act it dynamically, we need more concerns ;-)
  </extension>

----------
Double-bed

[1] http://www.nal.motlabs.com/pipermail/nemo/2003-April/000575.html

thanks,
Koshiro

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 16:49:35 +0900

Dear all,

I'm in the process of submitting an update version of both the
Requirements and the Terminology drafts. Following the discussion at
last IETF meeting, documents will remain separate, but terms which can
now be found in the Seamoby Terminology doc are now removed from the
NEMO document.

Before I do submit them to the IETF secretariat, I would like to make
sure on the NEMO ML that the terminology draft is going to be submitted
as a NEMO Working Group document, not as a personal submission anymore
(i.e. it would be draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-00 instead of
draft-ernst-nemo-terminology-02). Any concern about this ?

Thierry.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:46:52 +0200

[old mail...]

Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]> writes:
> Following the discussion at last IETF meeting, documents will remain
> separate, but terms which can now be found in the Seamoby
> Terminology doc are now removed from the NEMO document.

Can we see the relevant part of the current new terminology document
that does not appear in the Seamoby terminology document?

> Before I do submit them to the IETF secretariat, I would like to
> make sure on the NEMO ML that the terminology draft is going to be
> submitted as a NEMO Working Group document, not as a personal
> submission anymore (i.e. it would be draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-00
> instead of draft-ernst-nemo-terminology-02). Any concern about this?

Depends on how the current nemo terminology looks like.  To me it does
make sense to use the space in the Seamoby mobility terminology
document, provided that suggested additions of new terms are accepted.

If the body of the current terminology document is very long then a
new document might make sense (I mean another than Seamoby's).

On the other hand, every other non-terminology document might have its
own DEFINITIONS section.

On yet another hand, many terms are used for ad-hoc - read ephemere -
discussions and thus might not need to be set in any document.

Alex

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:46:52 +0200

[old mail...]

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:24:03 +0900

> that does not appear in the Seamoby terminology document?

The requirement draft is ready, but I'm stuck on the re-definition of
multihoming in the terminology, which requires me to update requirement
12-13.

So, I can send the 2 drafts with the current text and let the people
playing their favorite game: darts throwing.

> discussions and thus might not need to be set in any document.

Well, those comments don't help. Have you checked the Seamoby document
already and the relevant mobile network section ?

I will send the terminology as draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-00, I think
that's the consensus (well, indeed, the consensus is "no comment" :-)

Thierry

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:24:03 +0900

Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:53:18 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> Well, those comments don't help.

Ok, let me Cancel them.

> Have you checked the Seamoby document already and the relevant mobile
>  network section ?

Yes I did.  I found mobile network, MR and MNN. It does not contain MNP
(mobile network prefix).  Can we suggest to Seamoby to add MNP to that
document?

> I will send the terminology as draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-00, I 
> think that's the consensus (well, indeed, the consensus is "no 
> comment" :-)

No comment :-)

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:53:18 +0200

Ok, let me Cancel them.

No comment :-)

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:59:24 +0900

> (mobile network prefix).  Can we suggest to Seamoby to add MNP to that

Indeed, it does, but not in the same section.

Thierry

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 19:59:24 +0900

Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:51:18 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> Yes I did.  I found mobile network, MR and MNN. It does not contain
>>  MNP (mobile network prefix).  Can we suggest to Seamoby to add MNP
>>  to that document?
> 
> 

For example, it would be nice to have the acronym MNP too.  At the
moment it only has the "Mobile Network Prefix".

I suppose that the nemo terminology would not define MNP then, am I right?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:51:18 +0200

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 21:17:06 +0900

> I suppose that the nemo terminology would not define MNP then, am I right?

Why not ? 
Proposition granted, will be in new draft.

Thierry

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 21:17:06 +0900

Why not ? 

Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:29:28 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>>>> Yes I did.  I found mobile network, MR and MNN. It does not 
>>>> contain MNP (mobile network prefix).  Can we suggest to Seamoby
>>>>  to add MNP to that document?
>>> 
>>> 
> Why not ? Proposition granted, will be in new draft.

Excellent.

Along the same lines, please allow me to suggest grouping together the
definitions of Mobile Network and the definition of Nested Mobile
Networks.  To me it makes sense to have those two inherently related
terms defined together in one place.

What do you think?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:29:28 +0200

Excellent.

What do you think?

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 21:32:44 +0900

> terms defined together in one place.

Cannot be worked out because mobile network is defined in seamoby while
nested mobile network is in NEMO terminology. Nested terms are really
specific to NEMO, while mobile network is kind of generic term.

Thierry

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 21:32:44 +0900

Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:47:08 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> Along the same lines, please allow me to suggest grouping together
>>  the definitions of Mobile Network and the definition of Nested 
>> Mobile Networks.  To me it makes sense to have those two inherently
>>  related terms defined together in one place.
>> 
>> What do you think?
> 
> 
> Cannot be worked out because mobile network is defined in seamoby 
> while nested mobile network is in NEMO terminology. Nested terms are
>  really specific to NEMO, while mobile network is kind of generic 
> term.

[see section 5 "Specific Termino for manet", eventually they can
  section 6 "Specific Termino for NEMO"]

The only reason I thought this could not be worked out was that probably
it would be difficult to suggest this change to the generic Seamoby
"Mobility Terminology" document.  But we haven't yet tried.  What do you
think, is it worth trying to suggest to Seamoby to include Nested Mobile
Networks in the generic "Mobility Terminology" document?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:47:08 +0200

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 21:50:28 +0900

> Networks in the generic "Mobility Terminology" document?

Of course we tried, that was they have included some of our terminology
... But we need to keep the control on this term I think, so I didn't
suggest this term to the J. Manner. I have suggested egress
interface, ingress interface, mobile router, mobile network node, fixed
node, mobile network, and network mobility. That's it, as far as I
remember.

Thierry

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 21:50:28 +0900

Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:04:16 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> The only reason I thought this could not be worked out was that 
>> probably it would be difficult to suggest this change to the 
>> generic Seamoby "Mobility Terminology" document.  But we haven't 
>> yet tried.  What do you think, is it worth trying to suggest to 
>> Seamoby to include Nested Mobile Networks in the generic "Mobility
>>  Terminology" document?
> 
> 
> Of course we tried, that was they have included some of our 
> terminology ... But we need to keep the control on this term I think,
>  so I didn't suggest this term to the J. Manner. I have suggested 
> egress interface, ingress interface, mobile router, mobile network 
> node, fixed node, mobile network, and network mobility. That's it, as
>  far as I remember.

Good editors are open to frequent exchanges with authors.  This would
allow authors to keep control of the necessary terms.

So, if your past interfacing experience with them was ok then there are
good chances that future interfacing will be the same.  Why not trying
to suggest addition to nested terms (and eventually a new NEMO section)
to Seamoby editors then?  Depending on the fruits of this new
interaction we can then try to become independent or to stick to that
Seamoby doc.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:04:16 +0200

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 22:04:05 +0900

> interaction we can then try to become independent or to stick to that

Because the Seamoby doc is already in the IESG hands.

I don't see your point.

Thierry

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 22:04:05 +0900

I don't see your point.

Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:18:14 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> Good editors are open to frequent exchanges with authors.  This 
>> would allow authors to keep control of the necessary terms.
>> 
>> So, if your past interfacing experience with them was ok then there
>>  are good chances that future interfacing will be the same.  Why 
>> not trying to suggest addition to nested terms (and eventually a 
>> new NEMO section) to Seamoby editors then?  Depending on the fruits
>>  of this new interaction we can then try to become independent or 
>> to stick to that Seamoby doc.
> 
> 

I didn't know that.  I'm certainly not as accustomed to the right
procedure as you are.  I doubt though that "being in the
IESG" hands is an end of the story for any document.  Mobile IP went
through three revisiouns until now (rfc numbers I mean).

If by any chance the IESG turns back a comment on lack of some
mobility-related terms, maybe we should jump on that opportunity
and add "nested mobile networks" to it, what do you think?

> I don't see your point.

Sorry, must be because I don't have that clear view of procedure and
advancing of various documents.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:18:14 +0200

Alex