Subject: RE: RO approaches and the proposed charter (was 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: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:26:32 +0200

>Just curious. would this be HAHA based approach or something different?
>
>BTW, I personally support the HAHA based approach, but I also agree
that
>draft-thubert has a BGP/routing scalability issue that it needs to
>solve.
>

[Pascal] 

This discussion has started with the assumption that global HAHA would
be deployed against all common sense. Something similar could have been 
said in the early IPv6 days. Such a vast address space, BGP core will 
collapse!

Global HAHA does not mean that every single distributed Home will end up

in the DFZ. If the draft gives that impression, I'll fix the draft. 

In fact, there could be a very limited set of mobile ISP consortiums, 
and a single prefix in the DFZ for each of those. GTP has proven that 
this can happen in the real world, hasn't it?

Global HAHA introduces a mobile Plane that is accessible from many POPs 
around the Internet. It's like a subway where the stations are proxy
HAs. 
Only the aggregation of that mobile Plane (one prefix per consortium) 
has to be injected in the DFZ, like a metro sign indicating the nearest 
station. 

Fixed routes in the mobile Plane are handled using IGP and EGP as usual.
That would be the routes to the Homes. What's missing in the draft is
that
Description with ISPs interacting at BGP level.

Inside the mobile Plane, Proxies also could inject mobile prefixes if
that
was a wanted feature. But global HAHA also introduces route projection;
Proxies at the end of a conversation discover each other (NHRP) and 
then exchange routes over a tunnel they set up dynamically. 

So yes, like anything else, global HAHA could be deployed stupidly, 
but guess what, people will know better.

Pascal

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:32:43 +0300

El 21/04/2006, a las 10:26, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribió:
....

> and a single prefix in the DFZ for each of those.

Interesting....

However, this is NOT presented anywhere in the draft

actually what it is actually in the draft is

5.1  Initial routing

5.1.1  External routing

    Sites are expected to be connected locally to the internet, via the
    network of one or more service provider.  Each site has a default
    route to the internet via that connection.

                                     . ..   /
             ---------          ........ ..;.           ---------
            |         |       ..          / .....      |         |
            |     ::/0 ->  ....          ;      ...  <- ::/0     |
            |         ============HAHA=TUNNEL===========         |
            |         | ....           ;          .... |         |
            |         | .<- Home::/32 /  Home::/32 ->..|         |
             --------- ...           ;             ...  ---------
                         .....      /               ..
                                .  ;....      ......
                                  /  ..........

    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).

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.

I couldn't find the concept of mobile ISP consortiums anywhere in the 
draft, which seems to be a key role player in your supposed deployment 
model (but maybe i missed that...)

OTOH, i did see several emails from potential users that claimed that 
mobile platforms needed PI addressing

now these are the users that will be deploying this stuff and they said 
they want PI for this...

> but guess what, people will know better.

Now maybe may idea about how to deploy this is indeed stupid, but what 
can i say, this is what i could infer from what i read in the draft and 
the comments in the mailing list.... probably i am too short...

regards, marcelo