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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

RYUJI WAKIKAWA wrote:
> 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.

I would keep this for future enhancements of the reqs document, or other
reqs document.  For now the reqs document with this requirements added
(Ross proposals) make perfect sense to me.

Alex

> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>