Subject: RE: [nemo] Route Optimization by CR

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:55:25 +0200

Hi Ryuji:

I liked your draft for a number of reasons; mostly because it reflects
an deep understanding of the problem statement for RO in the
infrastructure. I like the structure of the doc and the items that are
discussed and I think they are very relevant. 

I have more reserves with the solutions because:

- Nested and infra ROs are merged in the doc but they should not since
they are different. Note that ORC in the infra is compatible with RRH :)

- the Nested RO part is not self sufficient since you need a MANET that
you do not described. I believe that the value of the draft is more in
the infra part.

- I do not believe in the assumption that there will be a CR for all
/64. Hence, we must find something else for CR discovery. Maybe some
service like DNS. Maybe some BGP extension. I hate snooping.

- CR redistributes the NEMO routes it got from RO Bus into its IGP. As a
result, the route exchange process MUST have the safety of routing
protocols in the Internet. There must be a trust chain that tells you
that this MR really owns that MNP and I believe that RR test is not
enough there. Maybe some route servers.

Nemo allows to build a tunnel in a P2P fashion, and to exchange routes
over that tunnel.
I call that process route projection when I present it. Route Projection
may become very important for the scalability of the Internet. 

There are lower level details that I could discuss. Like adding text for
topological correctness over the tunnels, things like that.

What do you think?

Pascal