Subject: RE: [nemo] comments on solution space analysis part in taxonomy draft

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:46:36 +0100

> 
> > Overall, the solution space part does not analyze the space
completely and
> > does not categorize the solution space into mutual exclusive
categories.
> 
> As I've mentioned, I strive to be complete, and not mutually
exclusive.
> My feeling is that we are very close to a complete description, once
we
> feel in the parts on MANET as an RO appraoch.
> 
Agreed. We have a little duplication and we can improve some of it. This
is not last call yet, is it :?)

We have been encouraging people to speak up if they think something is
missing for quite some time. If the doc serves as source for the WG
document, then maybe more people will feel encouraged to contribute even
more to the discussion and propose additional content.

That question was raised by the chairs and delayed because of
accusations of partiality that now seem to be unfounded. On the ML, Fan
expressed his opposition on some grounds that we are discussing
currently. 

As of now, I strongly feel the taxonomy draft is a good base and that
the cost of starting over is not justified by the arguments that were
produced and the alternates that were outlined. 

Pascal

---

From: "T.J.Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:21:08 -0800

Well, the concern is a valid one.. but it should only be raised by 
someone who has read the latest version of the draft.

-TJ

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:23:16 +0100

> someone who has read the latest version of the draft.

Well, here I am, have just read some parts of the draft.  These comments
are not exhaustive, and I do not comment on advancement of this
particular draft, and don't comment to the draft in its entirety.

Within the Problem Statement, I think the draft fails to mention that
optimal routes for NEMO could be obtained by injecting routes in the
visited domain but that brings in other bigger problem.  This problem is
also one of the reasons why Mobile IP for hosts was developped the way
it was, but I think it deserves brief mentioning in a NEMO RO PS
(Problem Statement, not Proposed Standard, not PostScript) document too.
  Or maybe this problem is already too basic to be mentioned here.

I don't like the term "pinball routing" I like it better "multi-angular"
routing.  If you know of a reference to prior use of this term "pinball
routing" please let me know.

Section 2.3: "When a MIPv6 mn joins a mobile network it becomes a VMN".
  I think it is also valid to say "When a MIPv6 mn joins a mobile network
it becomes a LMN".  The VMN and LMN terms offer no useful distinction
here.  BEtter use MH or MR or MN, it is sufficient to my reading.

Section 3.2 Infrastructure Optimization fails to mention BGP.  But it
does mention HAHA as a potential Infrastructure Optimization (to my
understanding, HAHA is _not_ known to work even on paper, so why
mentioning it at all).

What are "Mobile Routers forming a fleet"?

"Possible nodes that are required to be changed include: ..." why does
the list include VMN and not include LMN?  Isn't it because there is no
clear distinction between LMN and VMN?  So again better just use MH, MR
or MN.

So in section 4.2.2 Infrastructure Optimization, if we do this, we need
a method to Discover Correspondent Routers, right?  Do you know of such
a method?

I've only partially read the draft, comments welcome.

Alex

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:31:24 +0800

Hello Alex,

Sorry to jump in late ....

>   Or maybe this problem is already too basic to be mentioned here.

That doesn't sounds like a problem statement to me. It sounds mre like
an issue arising from a particular RO approach.  true, it is possible to
inject routes to achieve route optimization, and the current
ro-taxonmy-03 draft did not list it.  I will do so for later version
(see below).

Or, to use the terms Thierry used, its not a core problem for the need
of RO.

> understanding, HAHA is _not_ known to work even on paper, so why

Yep ... that's exactly where I will add what I said above.

> a method to Discover Correspondent Routers, right?  Do you know of such

Not really, though there have been some mechanism suggested, such as
having a multicast address for correspondent router group.

And "The nedd for CR discovery mechanism" issue is listed in the draft.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:33:51 +0900

Hello Pascal.

At Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:46:36 +0100,
> is not last call yet, is it :?)

not yet:-p

> more to the discussion and propose additional content.

I supports taxonomy draft as a WG document. 
Although there are several texts saying particular solution, we can
improve it after it being WG document.

I want to merge exisiting PS drafts to this taxonomy.
draft-watari has many clasification of nested case and draft-clausen
explains possiblity of exchanging routes between MRs.

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:12:43 +0900

Hi Alex

At Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:23:16 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

<snip>

>   Or maybe this problem is already too basic to be mentioned here.

draft-clausen provides some thoughts on how MR can inject routes for
nesting case.  

> a method to Discover Correspondent Routers, right?  Do you know of such

The discovery of CR is not always necessary.  
For example, CR can be statically configured to MR.  If I have CR in
my home, MR can always send BU to CR no matter my mobile network
communicates to my home. 

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:58:20 +0100

> draft-clausen provides some thoughts on how MR can inject routes for

Yes, I mean more than that.  Route updates in the nesting case may be an 
approach to be investigated as a solution, but route updates to the 
larger Internet, no.  Right?

Alex

---

From: Masafumi Watari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:25:41 +0900 (JST)

Hi Pascal and all,

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:33:51 +0900,

> explains possiblity of exchanging routes between MRs.

I second Ryuji on this.  The pb statement part of the new taxonomy
draft is well documented and shaped.  However, the nested cases of
draft-watari-nemo-nested-cn-00.txt is only added as a reference, so
they need to be merged if we were to proceed.

OTOH, I prefer to have the taxonomy draft separated with the solution
space.  I'm not so much concerned with the length of the document, but
with all the discussion going on recently on the ML, and considering
that fact that more solutions should appear, it will take longer for
the problem space to settle.  If new problems arise later, we can go
back and add them on the pb statement.  Afterall, I think it would be
a lot easier that way then referring to a single document on two
issues like we are doing now.

watari