Subject: RE: [nemo] Multiple Egress vs multihoming

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 12:32:59 +0100

> Pascal, question about Jetset.
> I want to know whether Jetset case considers to place two HAs (which
> serves same mobile network prefix/64(MNP)) in different IGP domains or
not.

Yes :)

> 
> If Yes, I think NEMO requires BGP level operations to route packets to
> each HA.
> 

I think you understand the problem. I'm not sure you word it right. I
think the HAs must form a routing plane that is across Admin boundaries,
and may redistribute the result in their own AS.

But if you have to design a HAHA protocol to replace the home network, I
suspect you'd better not tie it to a physical link and make it at L3,
for instance over a multicast group of HAs?

> For example, HA1 can announce MNP by BGP, but HA2 can not announce
> same MNP by BGP. HA2 may allow to advertise MNP by IGP inside the IGP
> domain. It is not acceptable to manage unaggregated prefix at BGP
> level.
> 
> In this example, HA2 is useful only inside its IGP domain.  All
packets
> to the MNP will be routed to HA1 based on BGP routing.
> In this case, HA2 may be treated as Correpondent Router of MR.
> 
> Sorry if this question was discussed already in ML.

Well, I mentioned that several times in the ML including to you. I think
Erik rejected the idea of the HA-HA protocol as being out of our
charter. Anyway, this case is one of the reasons why I support your
draft, even if it is an indirect one.

> regards,

Me too :)

Pascal