Subject: RE: About the proposed charter and global HAHA (was Re: [nemo] RE: About route aggregation in global HAHA

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:52:14 +0200

and global HAHA (was Re: [nemo] RE: About route aggregation
>in global HAHA
>
>Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>> One of the motivations is to get rid of the issues associated with
>> the Home Link (single site, single point of failure)
>
>Address "single site - single point of failure"????
>
>I could understand addressing single HA - single point of failure (in
>which case multiple HAs can co-exist on the home link), but "single
site
>- single point of failure" can't be addressed by any protocol, should
>better be addressed by some administrative organizations.  Or by shim6.
>
>Good food for thought but no protocol to be designed here.  Imagine I
>want to test that protocol; how could I inflict some failure to some
>site to illustrate the benefits of my protocol?
>
[Pascal]

Alex, sometimes I wonder if we waste our time writing such docs as:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement
-02.txt

please have a look a chapter 2.2  If you disagree please comment on that
draft.

At the moment, this is considered as a problem and HAHA addresses it.

MIP6 is based in ND on the home link. HAHA replaces that by a routing
protocol. 
This is true for both local and global HAHA.

Pascal

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:50:10 +0200

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>> One of the motivations is to get rid of the issues associated 
>>> with the Home Link (single site, single point of failure)
>> I could understand addressing single HA - single point of failure 
>> (in which case multiple HAs can co-exist on the home link), but 
>> "single
> site
>> - single point of failure" can't be addressed by any protocol, 
>> should better be addressed by some administrative organizations. Or
>> by shim6.
>> 
>> Good food for thought but no protocol to be designed here.  Imagine
>>  I want to test that protocol; how could I inflict some failure to 
>> some site to illustrate the benefits of my protocol?
>> 
> [Pascal]
> 
> please have a look a chapter 2.2  If you disagree please comment on 
> that draft.

Section 2.2 "Bottleneck in home network" describes that there is a
problem because all traffic goes through the home link and Home Agent.
The home link may become a bottleneck and a single-point of failure.

I do not disagree with that.

But it's not because the problem is listed there that (1) globalHAHA is
a feasible solution or that (2) anybody needs globalHAHA and (3)
globalHAHA may solve in any way the "site failure" problems you were
mentioning.  I see no direct relationship between aforementioned section
2.2 and globalHAHA.

> At the moment, this is considered as a problem and HAHA addresses it.

I simply disagree.

> MIP6 is based in ND on the home link.

It is.

> HAHA replaces that by a routing protocol.

I somehow agree, and to go further I'd say there are at least a couple 
deployed routing protocols doing just that.

Alex