Subject: RE: RO approaches and the proposed charter (was Re: About theproposed charter and global HAHA (was Re: [nemo] RE: Aboutroute aggregation in global HAHA

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:21:13 +0200

>>
>>Please note that we have sites and providers here and the prefix
>>announced belongs to the SITE and NOT to the provider. This i read as
>>PI for end sites being injected in the DFZ.
>>
[Pascal] Hi Marcelo: 

Again, thanks for your comments on global HAHA.

What do you think of the following changes:

Before:

   In return, each site advertises the aggregation that encompasses the
   Distributed Home Network aggregation back into the service provider
   network, to the outside world (the internet).

Proposed text:

   In return, each site advertises a Home aggregation to the internet.
   The Home aggregation has a very short prefix which should be
   partitioned amongst a number of Service Providers and subnetted to
   serve as Distributed Home Networks for their customers.  One could
   visualize this aggregation as a subway for Mobile Nodes.

Before:

   In each area, border HAs are elected to mesh with peers in other
   sites.  Again, they discover each other, mesh using tunnels, and form
   a backbone.  It might be preferable to form a fully meshed backbone,
   in order to limit the cost of routing between sites.  Also, making
   the backbone a transit area enables the use of a specific HA for the
   HAHA protocol that acts as an OSPF Designated Router or a BGP Route
   Reflector.

Proposed text:

   In each site, border HAs are elected to mesh with peers in other
   sites.  Sites are interconnected over a mesh tunnels and private
   links.  Routing between sites obeys the traditional rules of the
   Internet, using an Exterior Gateway Protocol (like BGP) between sites
   of different service providers, and an IGP within a Distributed Home
   Network.

   Between sites of a given Distributed Home Network, it might be
   preferable to form a fully meshed backbone, in order to limit the
   cost of routing and optimize the paths.

Also: replace Home://32 by Home::/16 which might make more sense in this
space.

What do you think?

Pascal

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:21:10 +0300

Hi Pascal,

thanks for the effort with the new text, but i was thinking about a 
deployment consideratiosn section rather than including changes in the 
solution text...

I think that as some folks mentioned earlier (maybe even you did) there 
are two separated issues:
on one hand there is the actual protocol spec and otoh there is how to 
deploy the solution.

after this thread, i think we have identified two possible ways to 
deploy global HAHA:
- one option is to use the mobile ISP consortium model that you 
described
- the other option is to use PI addresses for global companies that 
need to service and make arrangements with local ISPs in each location, 
so that the PI prefix is injected.

these two alternatives are enabled by the global HAHA protocol, agree?

now, as we already discussed they have different effects in the global 
routing table

My suggestion with respect to the actual draft would be to include a 
deployment section ackowledging the different deployment models and the 
issues with the different models and eventually making a recomendation 
that only the scalable model is deployed.

I mean, i don't think it is a good approach to mix actual proto spec 
with deployment issues, like the prefix length for instance.

In any case, i guess it should be made clear that the global haha tool 
enables also non so global routing table firendly deployment models and 
that this is a liability if we decide to go through this path, since 
peope may decide to use it in this other ways.

Regards, marcelo