Subject: [nemo] What RO do you get

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:43:58 +0200

>>>> [Pascal] How many prefixes do you have in your MR in the SHIM6
>>>> approach?
>>>
>>> shim6 relies on PA addressing, so you need one prefix per ISP
serving
>>> the home netowrk.
>> [Pascal] That was not my question. The RO ypu get with this depends
on
>> how close from your location the closest HA is. The SHIM approach
needs
>> one prefix in the MR per such location. So you end up with 1-3
>> locations, and that does not give you Route Optimization.
Distributing
>> the same Home does better, and multiplying proxies does even better.
>> That was my point.
>
>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.

If I have to have one prefix by HA and you have no proxy, then the
number of location is limited to the number of prefix. How many prefixes
would you manage in a telephone? As a result, the non ROed part (between
you and the closest HA) is half a continent, though you might be talking
to someone next door (Alex's point in this discussion).

I see where the SHIM6 approach provides connectivity redundancy (though
not transparent to LFN as should be), but no RO at all, sorry. 

Pascal

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:15:19 +0300

> 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?

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...

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?

regards, marcelo