Subject: RE: [nemo] Announcing the Global HAHA draft

From: "Dul, Andrew L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:34:29 -0800

Hello Pascal,

I'd like to introduce myself, I'm a member of the Connexion by Boeing
networking team and have been following the NEMO list for about 8 months
or so at this point.  I'll have to apologize for not being completely
up-to-date on all the drafts within the working group as I have other
work pulling me in other directions.  :)  I was unable to attend the
ietf meeting last week, I hope to be able to attend in the future to
discuss this with the working group.  I was just able to review the
slides that you presented at the meeting.  Were there any interesting
comments at the meeting regarding global-haha that you could summarize
to the list?

In the mean time, I hope my comments below are helpful in starting the
discussion.

I'd like to thank you & others for producing the global-haha draft.  I
do think it makes sense to split the drafts since from my perspective a
global mobility solution may be quite different than one that is even
optimized for regional mobility.  

I think one of the reasons why you haven't seen a lot of interest on
this draft is that the truly global mobility market is really very
small.  The aircraft industry also tends to move quite slow compared
with the speed of technology & adoption in the "Internet" space.  When I
think about the objects that are really truly globally mobile in most
cases they are limited to aircraft, maritime vessels, & people.  Even
when you think about people further, we are mostly regionally mobile.
Sure we travel to different parts of the globe but most of us are
generally only regionally mobile, and when we are outside of our normal
region we are often there for only shorter periods of time.  Jet
aircraft are somewhat unique in that they can traverse the entire globe
within a single day.  

As I read through the draft (4.1.1.) I can see areas where the tunneling
in a global environment can still cause a large increase in latency.
Consider the following case.  Service provider A has a ground
global-haha network that an aircraft attach to in London & Sydney, in
this case the aircraft is owned by company Z with operations in Chicago
served by Service provider B.   The plane is on the ground in Sydney and
maintenance staff are using the onboard IP phone to talk to operations
staff in Chicago.   Given a set of BGP routing tables it is possible
that the path through the London HA would be a perceived best path from
Chicago.  In this case the call would be routed from Chicago to London
to Sydney instead of directly to Sydney.  In the v4 world we have used a
BGP rehoming solution that can largely negate this issue.  At this point
it is unclear to me if a similar rehoming solution is possible or
desirable in the multihomed v6 world.  This also may be too much of a
corner case but it is nonetheless an interesting case.

In my opinion I believe that for a global mobility standard to be truly
successful it must allow for the mobile networks to roam between service
providers & BGP ASNs.  This aspect brings up another whole set of issues
with address allocation, v6 multi-homing, and integration with BGP.
(Which maybe outside the scope of the NEMO charter?)   I also note that
many of these issues are still not finalized in the v6 world from my
current readings.  Authentication & Authorization for MR's to the mesh
between ASNs is also a consideration.  As Terry Davis one of my
colleagues stated in a previous mail, it is likely that the aircraft
networks will be connected to a number of other networks via different
mechanisms, some of them will be satellite based, some air-to-ground,
and some ground-to-ground when the aircraft is between flights.
Specifically for the ground-to-ground links it is unlikely that a single
service provider would be able to provide global coverage at any large
majority of world airports.  

Thanks for your time,
Andrew

-----------------------
Andrew L. Dul
Network Design Engineer	
ConneXion by Boeing(SM) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 1:37 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: nemo
> Subject: [nemo] Announcing the Global HAHA draft
> 
> 
> As a result of the discussions at the previous IETF and in the ML, we 
> decided to split the HAHA draft in a local part that covers intra-site

> load balancing and high availability, and a global part that enables 
> the geographical distribution of Home over the Internet.
> 
> The version 00 of the global HAHA draft is now available at:
> 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha-00.tx
t

Pascal

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:43:32 +0900

Hello Andrew

At Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:34:29 -0800,
> aircraft are somewhat unique in that they can traverse the entire globe

The airplane is perfectly applicable scenario. There are
also useful cases without globally physical movements.
For example, automobile industry is also interested in this topic.
When considering Europe automobile market, where can they put HA?
1 HA for each country? Commercial tracks often drive beyond countries.
If I got Japanese car in Europe, MNP might be configured with the home
network in Japan.  

> corner case but it is nonetheless an interesting case.

Isn't it possible that service provider B joins the global-haha
network of service provider A?  And if service provider A advertise
the same prefix from London and Sydney to BGP, operator in Chicago should
pick the path via Sydney (when IP distance is really shorter).

> majority of world airports.  

Global-HAHA enables full HA operations on IP layer.  It means we can
put HAs over ASN if each HA advertise the same home network prefix by
BGP. It might be possible to see some super ISP beyond ASN for
globally mobility in near future:-)

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 01:14:21 +0100

Dear Andrew, I'm following up on this message because somewhere in it
you invite for comments so I do.

Let me introduce myself, I'm a member of a lab with Motorola.  I have an
interest in moving networks (groupings of hosts that move
homegeneously).  The application space I'm looking at is relatively less
precise than what Connexion by Boeing where they seem to have a very
precise scenario and need.

Dul, Andrew L wrote:
>  comments at the meeting regarding global-haha that you could 
> summarize to the list?

Well, I wanted to comment more on global-haha, but there was a sudden
change in scoping of the presentation so my comments were not really
relevant.

> small.

Well, I have two comments here.  One is that I think there is much
interest in global haha in the context of NEMO, and I think I've
seen interest in similar HA-HA comments in other mobility-related
working groups as well (mip4).

The other comment is about the market size.  An average person where I
live spends 100euros/year for mobile phone communication but may spend
an order of magnitude more for travelling by plane.  More persons speak
on the mobile than travelling, but actual money spent may be similar.
And some may even spend 4 orders of magnitude more in order to travel
very far.

> phone to talk to operations staff in Chicago.   Given a set of BGP 
> routing tables Sydney.  In the v4 world we have used a BGP rehoming 
> solution that can largely negate this issue.

I just wanted to mention that I've just read somewhere that when BGP
routes are allowed to be injected at several ISPs they must be at most
or longer than /19 (v4 space).  Is it so?

Which leads me to think in an actual plane no more than 2^13 IP
addresses or similar.  Which may be more than enough when considering
WLAN web in plane (max 555 seats), but may not be sufficient if sensors
want to talk too.  "Sensors" may not talk IP soon due to memory
footprint, but maybe PDAs near laptops want, or maybe Bluetooth
headsets, or similar.

And this reasoning only if NAT is not used on the main router aboard.
If it is, which I'm curious to know, then indeed things are different.

> At this point it is unclear to me if a similar rehoming solution is 
> possible or desirable in the multihomed v6 world.  This also may be 
> too much of a corner case but it is nonetheless an interesting case.

YEs, I guess so, a case that I'm interested to know.  For example, is it
that the router onboard talks BGP, or the one on the ground?

I also wanted to say it seems to me that passenger trajectories are
usually known knowns (not random as in mobile handset trajectories).
And I have the feeling this may ease the impact of route injection may
have on the core routing tables.  For example, if the ground router at
the destination knows the plane shows above at exactly 02h55gmt then it
could prepare in advance something for it.  This may be far off what BGP
can do, I;m not knowledgeable, just floating an idea.

> In my opinion I believe that for a global mobility standard to be 
> truly successful it must allow for the mobile networks to roam 
> between service providers & BGP ASNs.  This aspect brings up another
>  whole set of issues with address allocation, v6 multi-homing, and 
> integration with BGP. (Which maybe outside the scope of the NEMO 
> charter?)

I think it is out of the scope of the present time.

But I do think that more information about an actual deployment of
networks that move is really useful, at least for me.  In exchange, I
have other examples of deployments of networks that move that I can
describe, that don't use Mobile IP either, but have similar pre-known
trajectories: trains.

> I also note that many of these issues are still not finalized in the
>  v6 world from my current readings.  Authentication & Authorization 
> for MR's to the mesh between ASNs is also a consideration.  As Terry
>  Davis one of my colleagues stated in a previous mail, it is likely 
> that the aircraft networks will be connected to a number of other 
> networks via different mechanisms, some of them will be satellite 
> based, some air-to-ground, and some ground-to-ground when the 
> aircraft is between flights.

The diversity of networks to which a plane may need to connect may
induce the use of Mobile IP.  However, Mobile IPv6 for NEMO does not
have RO, so some paths may be unoptimal.

If on the other hand if the plane can connect to a limited number of
places with BGP then routes seem to me to be more or less optimal.

Alex