Re: [nemo] new requirement for draft-ietf-nemo-requirements

[RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[e-mail]>]

Hi Marcelo,

On 2006/12/05, at 1:31, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> El 04/12/2006, a las 16:47, Jari Arkko escribió:
>
>> I have not looked into HAHA yet, but from your
>> description below it does not seem to cause
>> routing problems. It is common to advertise
>> prefixes from multiple locations.
> agree that this is common, but announcing a specific routing entry  
> for each home network (i.e. end site, not ISP)  does seem to pose  
> scalability issues for the routing system, imho

This is too detail to discuss at this point. This is operational issue.

> I mean, we have discussed this before in this ml. If global HAHA is  
> deployed as a global mobility provider i.e. there is a single home  
> prefix that aggregates all the home networks from different end  
> sites, then, this seems similar to the provider aggregation
> However, if each home network of each nemo is announced seaprately,  
> then the number of announced routes increases considerably and i am  
> not sure if thi contribution to the global routing tables is  
> acceptable.

The global HAHA does not recommend to advertise each prefix separately.
We have the home network usage document to deploy home network in  
aggregated fashion.

> Anyway, i think the requirement is perfectly ok, we just need to  
> understand what is the intended deployment scenarios for global  
> HAHA and if those scale well.

right. What i want to know now is the answer from Jari.
We can discuss any further NEMO related protocols with this requirement.

ryuji

> Regards, marcelo
>
>
>> --Jari
>>
>> RYUJI WAKIKAWA kirjoitti:
>>> Hi Jari,
>>>
>>> I want to make sure one item whether it breaks new requirements  
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> We have been discussing multiple HAs usage (global-haha) in NEMO WG.
>>> It is not clear yet whether we will pick this in a WG item, but  
>>> maybe
>>> in future.
>>> This global HAHA advertises block of home prefixes to BGP in anycast
>>> fashion,
>>> but dynamic change of BGP entries is not occurred.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> ryuji
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2006/12/04, at 23:45, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We reviewed this draft in the IESG, and Ross raised
>>>> a requirement that he thinks is important but is not
>>>> listed in the current document. It is about the effect
>>>> to the Internet routing tables. Please find a suggested
>>>> edit below. We thought that this change is large
>>>> enough that the WG needs to be consulted, even
>>>> if the requirement is fulfilled by NEMO BSP. So,
>>>> if you have a problem with this change let us know
>>>> by the end of the week (Dec 8th).
>>>>
>>>> NEW Section 3.12:
>>>>
>>>> 3.12  Minimal Impact on Internet Routing
>>>>
>>>> Any NEMO solution(s) needs have minimal negative effect on the
>>>> global Internet routing system. The solution must therefore  
>>>> limit both
>>>> the amount of information that must be injected into Internet  
>>>> routing,
>>>> as well as the dynamic changes in the information that is injected
>>>> into the global routing system.
>>>>
>>>> As one example of why this is necessary, consider the approach of
>>>> advertising each mobile network's connectivity into BGP, and for
>>>> every movement withdrawing old routes and injecting new routes.
>>>> If there were tens of thousands of mobile networks each advertising
>>>> and withdrawing routes, for example, at the speed that an  
>>>> airplane can
>>>> move from one ground station to another, the potential effect on  
>>>> BGP
>>>> could be very unfortunate. In this example the total amount of  
>>>> routing
>>>> information advertised into BGP may be acceptable, but the dynamic
>>>> instability of the information (ie, the number of changes over  
>>>> time)
>>>> would be unacceptable.
>>>>
>>>> NEW requirement to be added to the end of Section 4:
>>>>
>>>> R17: The solution should have a minimal impact on the
>>>> global Internet routing system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>