Subject: [nemo] RE: globalHAHA can not guarantee shorter path benefits; can't predict placement of CN

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:23:42 +0200

>> I never understood that you thought it should be deployed that way,
>> quite the contrary... And I agreed already to change the draft
according
>> to your comments... I expect only minor impacts on the text,
though...
>
>Would it be possible to insert a section in the draft with an
>illustration of the deployment case where globalHAHA forces MR to use
>the HA closest to it and CN is placed such that MR had better used the
>HA farthest from it?
>
[Pascal] Would you have some proposed text?

Note that global HAHA resembles the GPRS core network, where SGSNs would
be proxies sites and GGSNs could be Home Sites. In the GTP world, you
find those pretty close to where you are. Coupling those features makes
a lot of sense and cisco's GGSN already supports Home Agent.

Compared to what you can do today with GTP, Global HAHA optimizes
further, between proxies, while you can not shortcut between SGSNs
today. Obviously, you could take an additional step in some situations,
like within a conference room or within a plane. In that case, I'd
suggest you consider a MANEMO based solution for local RO coupled with
global HAHA for global RO.

Global HAHA builds on accepted concepts (NEMO in one hand and GPRS core
network in the other) to enable, amongst other things, 4G telephony. As
TJ mentions, we have discussed HAHA in the WG for a very long time
already, sorry for new comers. The WG keeps improving the text (eg.
Marcelo's recent comments on the DFZ). So it could be expected that
sometime soon we ask the WG to accept global HAHA as a WG document,
which requires charter entry in the first place.

Global HAHA is not The RO solution. From the ROPS, it addresses 2.1 and
2.2; and ROSA shows that there are many angles to solve the other RO
problems, 2.3 to 2.7, and that there is not a single solution to solve
them all. Thus for instance the MANEMO discussions.

Pascal

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:57:01 +0200

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>> I never understood that you thought it should be deployed that
>>> way, quite the contrary... And I agreed already to change the
>>> draft
> according
>> illustration of the deployment case where globalHAHA forces MR to
>> use the HA closest to it and CN is placed such that MR had better
>> used the HA farthest from it?
>> 

I have posted several texts already on this, would you select the most 
appropriate and paste it first phrase in the abstract?

> Note that global HAHA resembles the GPRS core network, where SGSNs
> would be proxies sites and GGSNs could be Home Sites.

In a GPRS network, or any similar cell network, there is absolutely no
need of Mobile IP's encapsulating tunnels.  The network is small, while 
the tunnels are so that they traverse an entire Internet, not such a 
small network where route updates are feasible.

> In the GTP world, you find those pretty close to where you are.
> Coupling those features makes a lot of sense and cisco's GGSN already
> supports Home Agent.

Cisco's routers support lots of protocols.

> today.

I think netlmm concepts are better adapted for this.

> Global HAHA builds on accepted concepts (NEMO in one hand and GPRS
> core network in the other) to enable, amongst other things, 4G
> telephony. As TJ mentions, we have discussed HAHA in the WG for a
> very long time already, sorry for new comers. The WG keeps improving
> the text (eg. Marcelo's recent comments on the DFZ). So it could be
> expected that sometime soon we ask the WG to accept global HAHA as a
> WG document, which requires charter entry in the first place.

The WG members can still comment on its feasibility, no?

Alex