Subject: RE: Summary Re: [nemo] comments on "Tree Discovery" draft

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:42:04 +0200

> BTW, when you say that this change will trigger the BU in RO case,
it's
> who who sends the BU?  The MR that is near the MR that changed?  Or
the
> leaf MR that was told via propagated RA's that something has changed?

For a RO scheme where the HA knows about the path down the nested tree
to its MR (like RRH) the MR needs to update its own HA if that path
changes. So if a subtree moves, each MR down that subtree rebinds with
the new path. There is an obvious value in using our DHCP PD draft so
that this all happens locally...

Pascal

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:58:35 +0200

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> For a RO scheme where the HA knows about the path down the nested 
> tree to its MR (like RRH) the MR needs to update its own HA if that 
> path changes.

So, in the beginning there were bindings HoA-CoA, then there were
bindings HoA-MNP and now there are bindings HoA-Ad1-Ad2...Adn?

Do you know which current RO proposals assume that HA uses such "path"
bindings?

Such bindings sound like DSR...

> So if a subtree moves, each MR down that subtree rebinds with the new
>  path. There is an obvious value in using our DHCP PD draft so that 
> this all happens locally...

PD together with RRH and TD would actually constitute an entire and
complete solution for the whole RO space?

We don't even have a problem description for the RO space (while
Chartered to do so) but the solution is there :-(

We do have, however, personal drafts gen-ro-model and nemo-ro-taxonomy. 
Would RRH+TD+PD fit both models?

Alex