Subject: RE: [nemo] Re: What RO do you get

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:03:13 +0200

>>> providers for different technologies, right? So that you don't have to
>>> rely on a single provider giving UMTS, WIFI services for instance.
>>>
>>> In this scenario, you probably also want to have a stable address from
>>> each of the providers, so that you can by pass any of the providers. I
>>> mean if you are going to have a communication through the WiFI
>>> interface, you don't want to have to exchange the initial packets and
>>> the HoTI packets through the UMTS interface, right?
>>>
>>> So i really think that it is a very useful feature that 4G phones hame
>>> multiple Home Addresses associated to different providers and
>>> different
>>> technologies
>>>
>>> makes sense to you?
>>>
>> [Pascal] May happen... for some geeks who can tweak their phones.
>
>I don't know.. i would expect that if i pay my mobile phone, this is
>supported wihtout tweaks  (of course this would be differetn if the
>operator is subsidizing the phone)
>
>> That would not be the normal case for my grand ma. And I would not base
>> any RO on this. Again redundancy but no RO (and a lot of hidden
>> complexities).
>
>
>
>>
>> When my phone number is an IP address,
>
>not really i would expect that for IP phones my phone number is a URI,
>FQDN or something like this that is easier to remember and it can
>easily be mapped to multiple IP addresses
>
>>  I want to be always reachable at
>> that IP address. So providing a real redundancy to Home makes sense,
>> before you enter complex solutions based on presence or SHIM6 to
>> duplicate everything on the clients.
>>
>
>well, that is idea in putting intelegence in the edges and not in the
>core, which seems to be the basis for scalability. I guess bottom line
>disucssion here is about design principles. Of course that having the
>clients to perform the functions imply additional complexities in the
>clients, but making the network providing the fucntions, adds
>compelxity to the netowrk, makes it less scalable and makes it more
>rigid.
>
>regards, marcelo
>
>> Pascal
>>

---

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:03:13 +0200

>>> well with a shim6 approach you would get as many prefixes as
>>> distributed locations and you would be able to use the prefix
>>> associated with the closer location. So you end up suing the HA
which
>>> is closer to the MR. That should provide the same level of RO than
>>> global HAHA...
>>>
>> [Pascal] No, by orders of magnitude.
>>
>> Global HAHA allows you to place proxies wherever you place SGSNs
>> todays,
>> and HAs wherever you place GGSNs. You'll find them in your city. So
the
>> wasted part of the path (the non ROed) is a few blocks.
>>
>
>but the important point is how many attachment point do you have to the
>Internet, right?
>
[Pascal] How many anchor points, places that you can bind to. It's a bit
similar to HMIP, if you wish. But a MIP proxy HA works like a classical
proxy, not like a MAP; though both provide regional mobility.

>I mean having one HA per ISP would provide the same level of RO, since
>no matter how many proxies you have you always end up accessing the
>internet through the same number of  ISPs...
>
[Pascal] You access the Internet wherever you like and then bind to the
closest proxy. Note that for 4G mobile phones or ISP 802.11 access, the
proxy might be collocated with S/GGSNs. If can you join the APF/SSID at
layer 2, it means that there is a proxy for you right behind at layer 3.
If you access via a free connection, IP will take you to the nearest
site that can proxy for you.

>I think i am not understanding your point here...
>
>Are you saying that if you have more HA/proxies than the number of
>attachment ISPs you get a shorter path? How can that be if you still
>need to go through these limited number of ISPs?
[Pascal] 
Maybe thinking phone will help. In you mind image, think of current
GPRS. 

We have used it with Doors for years now. Wherever we roam, our packets
go back to the HA (say in France). If I was using SHIM6, there could be
another HA for me in the US so if I am there it could help a little bit.
But not much if I am in Japan. In the global HAHA world, there is a Home
site (not yours if you are a visitor in town but then it can proxy for
you) at the GGSN and a maybe even a proxy HA at the SGSN.

The RO you get initially depends on how well the ISPs are meshed inside
the consortium. But from there, the proxies can discover each other and
establish a direct tunnel over the Internet, bypassing the consortium
network for the data path. The resulting path is no different then if
you were doing a direct connection. But there is an encapsulation that
hides the mobility to the end points (the MR == 4G phones).

Say that there are HAHA roaming agreements between ISP A and ISP B.

Say that ISP A' belongs to the same ISP consortium as ISP A so they
share the same "global HAHA subway", the same Home Aggregation that ends
up in the DFZ.

Then the RO path between phone A and phone B will be:

Phone A <==> proxy A' <==> proxy B' <==> phone B

Looks like the normal path but for the fact that it's a proxies instead
of a HAs.

The difference is that proxy A' is very close to A and proxy B' is very
close to B. So if there are proxies that you can use everywhere, and
even though you have a single home site far, far away, you get RO and
mostly fix ROPS problems 1 and 2.

This builds on the way your phone roams today. You can attach to a base
station that belongs to a partner if you have roaming agreements. In
terms of HAHA, this is expressed by the fact that the partner (A')
exposes the Home aggregation that encompasses your Home Network.

I hope this helps? I might have missed your question.

Pascal

Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [email-masked]

>>> well with a shim6 approach you would get as many prefixes as
>>> distributed locations and you would be able to use the prefix
>>> associated with the closer location. So you end up suing the HA
which
>>> is closer to the MR. That should provide the same level of RO than
>>> global HAHA...
>>>
>> [Pascal] No, by orders of magnitude.
>>
>> Global HAHA allows you to place proxies wherever you place SGSNs
>> todays,
>> and HAs wherever you place GGSNs. You'll find them in your city. So
the
>> wasted part of the path (the non ROed) is a few blocks.
>>
>
>but the important point is how many attachment point do you have to the
>Internet, right?
>
[Pascal] How many anchor points, places that you can bind to. It's a bit
similar to HMIP, if you wish. But a MIP proxy HA works like a classical
proxy, not like a MAP; though both provide regional mobility.

>I mean having one HA per ISP would provide the same level of RO, since
>no matter how many proxies you have you always end up accessing the
>internet through the same number of  ISPs...
>
[Pascal] You access the Internet wherever you like and then bind to the
closest proxy. Note that for 4G mobile phones or ISP 802.11 access, the
proxy might be collocated with S/GGSNs. If can you join the APF/SSID at
layer 2, it means that there is a proxy for you right behind at layer 3.
If you access via a free connection, IP will take you to the nearest
site that can proxy for you.

>I think i am not understanding your point here...
>
>Are you saying that if you have more HA/proxies than the number of
>attachment ISPs you get a shorter path? How can that be if you still
>need to go through these limited number of ISPs?
[Pascal] 
Maybe thinking phone will help. In you mind image, think of current
GPRS. 

We have used it with Doors for years now. Wherever we roam, our packets
go back to the HA (say in France). If I was using SHIM6, there could be
another HA for me in the US so if I am there it could help a little bit.
But not much if I am in Japan. In the global HAHA world, there is a Home
site (not yours if you are a visitor in town but then it can proxy for
you) at the GGSN and a maybe even a proxy HA at the SGSN.

The RO you get initially depends on how well the ISPs are meshed inside
the consortium. But from there, the proxies can discover each other and
establish a direct tunnel over the Internet, bypassing the consortium
network for the data path. The resulting path is no different then if
you were doing a direct connection. But there is an encapsulation that
hides the mobility to the end points (the MR == 4G phones).

Say that there are HAHA roaming agreements between ISP A and ISP B.

Say that ISP A' belongs to the same ISP consortium as ISP A so they
share the same "global HAHA subway", the same Home Aggregation that ends
up in the DFZ.

Then the RO path between phone A and phone B will be:

Phone A <==> proxy A' <==> proxy B' <==> phone B

Looks like the normal path but for the fact that it's a proxies instead
of a HAs.

The difference is that proxy A' is very close to A and proxy B' is very
close to B. So if there are proxies that you can use everywhere, and
even though you have a single home site far, far away, you get RO and
mostly fix ROPS problems 1 and 2.

This builds on the way your phone roams today. You can attach to a base
station that belongs to a partner if you have roaming agreements. In
terms of HAHA, this is expressed by the fact that the partner (A')
exposes the Home aggregation that encompasses your Home Network.

I hope this helps? I might have missed your question.

Pascal