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: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:04:28 +0200

Hi Masafumi-san

>>> What worries me is that i don't see any mobile ISP in the list
claiming
>>> that they need global HAHA to deploy their business, but there are
end
>>> users (air companies) that claim that want PI addressing for
deploying
>>> this.
>>>
>> If I understand well Tony's draft, NEMO is not the right forum for
>> Provider Independent (PI) allocation policy. And that work is still
>> ongoing, somewhere else...
>>
>> As for ISP side, I'm copying Masafumi-san who co authored the NEMO RO
>> PS.
>
>We are now migrating our network based on MMD and NGN, and within the
>next two years all of our mobile and fixed network would be based on
IP.
>Once that's done, I would imagine that something like global HAHA would
>be needed.  But if global HAHA is for NEMO and not MIP6, I don't see
>a strong need at this point in time.
>

[Pascal] I guess it can work for both MIP6 and NEMO though the main
benefits are for NEMO. 

I've seen interest for NEMO in that space because of mobile Personal
Area Networks (medical applications, this type of stuff) and in-Car
Mobile Networks. In a same fashion, I've seen interest for IPv6 for Home
Gateways because that brings a whole global network for a very long time
instead of a temporary NAT address as we see today.

So I'm a bit surprised by this comment...

Pascal