Subject: RE: [nemo] mor comments on TD

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:24:48 +0200

> 
> How would you formulate the requirements that motivate this? I'm not
> discouraging your work, but I think the WG needs to see the need for
> this more futuristic case. I would say we more likely need RO before
TD.

There may be a misunderstanding here. TSD is quite simple. And TD comes
before RO.
Say you have 10 MRs:
With no organisation, you may end up with a line of 10 routers, leading
to 10 levels of tunnelling and pinball routing. 
TD allows you to build your tree as shallow as can be, so that, say, MRs
are between 0 and 2 hops from the outside. It's a 'physical' RO.
Optimizes the number of hops to the infrastructure.
This is transparent to nemo basic so you still have up to 3 levels of
tunnelling.  
Once you've done that, then you want to do a nemo RO and avoid going
through the HAs etc...

Pascal

---

From: Mattias Pettersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:32:26 +0200

> Once you've done that, then you want to do a nemo RO and avoid going

That's a nice thought and you have good intentions.

I just don't agree with the assumptions you make;
  - no organisation, complete automation, no human decisions
  - lots of MRs
  - many levels of nesting

Of course we should not design a protocol (basic support) that only 
supports a limited number of MRs or a limited number of nesting levels, 
for instance. But a good estimation of likely figures helps when making 
design trade-offs. Unfortunately, in my experience, adding more 
autoconfiguration in one place in the system or on one layer in the 
stack doesn't eradicate the problem in question, it just pushes it to 
another place or to another layer.

I want this WG to work on the problem and requirements stated in the WG 
docs. We want basic support to provide connectivity. Optimisations of 
various kinds will come in a later stage. Why not make this a part of 
the problem statement for the continuation of the WG where we talk about RO?

/Mattias