Subject: [nemo] Multihoming and Multiple Egress Interfaces

From: ivancic <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:12:31 -0400

After reading the multihoming document (before the meeting!) and 
listening to the presentation yesterday, I find the multihoming docment 
informative, but it leaves me with a sense of incompleteness.  Perhaps 
because I am looking for some recommendation for implementation when in 
fact none exists in this document.

 The issue I run into during deployements of mobile networks related to 
multihoming is "how to handle multiple egress interfaces (WANs)."  I 
have used satellite, cellular and wifi simultaneously as egress 
interfaces.    The multihoming document mentions this type of 
multihoming in the Apendix A and B and is basically a
S/mP - (1,1,n).    I believe S/mP - (1,n,n ) will be a very common 
configuration. 

Is there a need to standardize a mechanism for prioritizing these 
interfaces?  The current implementation I use performs the priorities in 
the configuration.

Second,  It would be nice to have an illustration of  the S/mP 
configuration - multiple egress links.

The following site has some diagrams that are typical for the numerous 
egress WAN links that I have used.
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic/ICNS2004_Demo/ICNS2004_Demo.htm
( Also not the use of IPv6 over IPv4 backbone)

Will

-- 
******************************
William D. Ivancic
Phone 216-433-3494
Fax  216-433-8705
Lab  216-433-2620
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 07:30:51 +0800

Hello Will,

Thank you for your comments.  See response in line.

/rgds
/cwng

> fact none exists in this document.

We hope to achieve that, but would appreciate folks on the ML to
contribute recommendations to known implementations for such issues. 
Also, note that some issues does not currently have known (at least
unknwon to me) solutions.

> interfaces?  The current implementation I use performs the priorities in 

Depends.  If to achieve such prioritization, no information exchange is
required between the multihomed node and other nodes (eg HA, MR, AR),
then it is a question of implementation.  Nothing to standardize here to
ensure interoperability.  (but of-course, as informational document, we
could recommend a solution).

On the other hand, if such prioritization requires information exchange
between two nodes, then IMHO, most likely it would require
standardization.

> ( Also not the use of IPv6 over IPv4 backbone)

Thank you for the links.  The authors will consider if it is helpful to
include them.

/rgds
/cwng