Subject: [nemo] is global HAHA so complex?

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:06:44 +0200

>
>On 2006-04-25 10:12 Pascal Thubert (pthubert) said the following:
>> Thanks for the explanation Marcelo. Now I see what you have in mind.
>> This approach is interesting; I guess it takes a mix of MONAMI6 and
>> SHIM6 to get the result done.
>>
>> IMHO, though, It looks fairly complex and remote, compared to the use
of
>> existing routing protocols proposed in the global HAHA approach.
>
>Funny you should say that - to me the SHIM6 + MIP6 solution ( I'm not
sure
>MONAMI6 need to enter into this case) has been quite obvious, while the
>HAHA solution has not.  I've recently read up a bit more on HAHA, and
can
>see where you're going with it, but I don't think the major difference
is
>in complexity, but rather in potential deployment time-frame...

[Pascal] I guess that the complexity you perceive is there because
global HAHA goes into deployment which bears its own difficulties. I
suppose that to make an honest comparison, one should have the
equivalent level of information on the SHIM 6 alternate.

Doing that effort, you'd find things like: 
- to deploy a MR, you need to get a prefix from various regions into
each Mobile Router. This multiplies the complexity of a deployment.
- You need to deploy SHIM6 in all LFN. I agree with you that there is no
visible time-frame for getting this.
- And that gives you a very limited RO since you still do not have the
proxies, which are the real reason why global HAHA improves the path.

In terms of protocol, Global HAHA introduces one new component, the
proxy HA. This much is not very complex. Then it changes the ND based
exchanges in the Home Link by a routing protocol. Again, that complexity
is manageable. 

Pascal

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:17:39 +0300

> each Mobile Router. This multiplies the complexity of a deployment.

well, managing that each local ISP injects the gloabla HAHA prefix or 
deploying a global ISP consortium seems quite complex also

> visible time-frame for getting this.

right, but you still need this to support other features like 
multihoming.
I mean, a multihomed nemo or a nemo which home network is multihomed 
will need to have shim6 in the LFN on order to benefit from 
multihoming,

> proxies, which are the real reason why global HAHA improves the path.

not sure about this one... i mean you can use the closest HA which is 
similar to what you achieve in global HAHA (you could also expose CoAs 
to the LFN, and you would achieve optimal path, but this is other 
discussion, i guess)

> exchanges in the Home Link by a routing protocol. Again, that 

In terms of protocol, shim6 does not introduces any new component, 
since the shim6 protocol is needed to support multihoming

Anyway, i still argue that we need to flesh out the requirements that 
gloablly moving networks have in order to figure out which solution are 
best suited for them

Regards, marcelo

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:05:29 +0300

El 26/04/2006, a las 17:35, Henrik Levkowetz escribió:

>
>
> On 2006-04-26 09:17 marcelo bagnulo braun said the following:
>
> <snip a lot of good arguments>
>
> Yes.  That's it exactly.  If we don't have a clear picture of the 
> potential
> users,

after all this long thread, i think that the case of globally moving 
networks on board of airplanes or other transportation mechanisms are a 
use case for which there is interest and that we could try to work on a 
solution for that.

>  use cases and requirements we can't evaluate the benefit of any
> particular solution...
>

so imho we would need a charter item to flesh out the requirement for 
this case in particular and potentially other charter items for other 
use cases that we identify in this discussion (but no other use cases 
have been brought up to the list so far during this charter discussion 
AFAICT

Then another charter item would be the design of a solution that suits 
the identified requirements

regards, marcelo

> 	Henrik