Subject: RE: [nemo] Announcing RRH version 5

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:16:28 +0100

Hi Alex :)

> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> [about RRH...]
> > In fact, since it's an RO feature, we had to hold it for some time
in
> > order to focus on the basic support; on the bright side, this left
> > RRH a fair chance to mature, which it did. Overtime, a number of
> > competing techniques have been proposed, but RRH still stands as one
> > good way of performing RO.
> >
> > In fact, now that Tree Discovery is available as a separate draft,
> > the needs and values of RRH are much clearer. Tree Discovery traces
> > an optimized spanning tree of MRs, rooted at the infrastructure; and
> > on top of route optimization and tunnel compression, RRH alleviates
> > security and privacy issues and allows forwarding by a MR that would
> > not be bound home, which in particular breaks a classical mobile
Home
> > deadlock in basic NEMO.
> >
> > I believe it's time to discuss whether tree discovery and RRH are
> > part of the things we want to work on as a WG. I'm not sure it all
> > fits in the current charter.
> 
> Informally speaking, there may be IPR on solutions for Route
> Optimization for Moving Networks.

You must be right. There's none that I know of on the RRH draft, though.
It's a simple, opportunistic adaptation of the IPv4 LSRR for the Nemo
needs - and maybe other needs as well? I think it could move forward
quite easily. 

There's some IPR from Cisco on tree discovery; now, since it's handled
the same way as all the rest of the NEMO related IPR from Cisco, if you
can do basic, you can do it all. 

Pascal

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:46:00 +0200

Hi again Pascal,

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> You must be right. There's none that I know of on the RRH draft, 
> though. It's a simple, opportunistic adaptation of the IPv4 LSRR for
>  the Nemo needs - and maybe other needs as well?

Yes, how about RRH being looked into by other IPv6 WG's.  As a matter of
fact one could do lots of things with RRH exactly as one could do lots
of things with Loose Source Routing, not necessarily the moving networks RO.

> I think it could move forward quite easily.

Talking early about IPR is important for future advancement.

> There's some IPR from Cisco on tree discovery;

A-ha.  Good to know.

Alex