Re: about draft-nagami-mip6-nemo-multihome-fixed-network-01 (was Re: [nemo] Draft Agenda and CFP

[Nobuo OGASHIWA <[e-mail]>]

Dear Marcelo,

At Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:53:15 +0200,
marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> 
> >> Ok, this means that the nemo has multiple NEMo prefixes, one per each
> >> HA i.e. one per ISP, right?
> >> The other option would be that multiple ISP have to be injecting the
> >> same prefix, which option are you considering here?
> >
> >
> > Our assumption is the latter option.
> >
> 
> Ok, then who does the prefix belongs to? to ISP1 or to ISP2?

I would like to make sure the assumptions of your questions before
answer all questions.

ISP1 and ISP2 you are talking about are directly connected to the MR?
If so, the answer of the above question is neither ISP1 nor ISP2.
In our assumption, ISPs directly connected to the MR don't need to 
assign prefixes but need to assign just care-of addresses.
Yet another organization which manages the HAs assign the mobile 
network prefixes.
HAs might be geographically arranged into several ISPs,
however the prefix which are advertised from HAs are differ from the
ISP's one.



Sorry if the description in the draft made any confusion.
Would you mind to point out lines that is hard to understand?


Regards,

Nobuo Ogashiwa



> moreover, what is the length of the prefix being injected?
> 
> I can see several possibilities here:
> - a /48 for each multihomed site (of course if you have two multihomed 
> customers that use the same two ISPs and they both have obtained its 
> prefix from the same ISP and they have obtained aggregatable prefixes, 
> you can aggregate those two prefixes into one, but i am not sure how 
> likely this situation would be). Now if you inject a /48 (or a /47), 
> you are basically doing current IPv4 multihoming solution with its 
> scalability limitations
> - a /32. At this case i can think of a couple of possibilities:
>   The /32 belong to one of the ISPs. This case doesn't makes much 
> business sense imho, since this would mean that the ISP that is 
> announcing the prefix but does not owns the prefix will receive all the 
> traffic for that prefix even the traffic addressed to no multihomed 
> customers.
>   The other option i can think of is that there is a special /32 
> assigned to the clients multihomed with these two ISPs. Now this is 
> pretty old idea, suggested by Rekhter and Li in one of the CIDR RFCs 
> (if i remember correctly). The problem with this is that you need an 
> important amount of /32 (more exactly the number of combinations of 2 
> of all providers available, and then all the combinations of three and 
> so on). The other question that i have in this context, i fail to 
> understand what do you need nemo or mip6 for doing this in any case... 
> (so i guess i still don't understand you proposal : -(
> 
> regards, marcelo
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nobuo Ogashiwa
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Regards, marcelo
> >>
> >>
> >>> However, you can also set up multiple HAs in same ISP.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Nobuo Ogashiwa
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> regards, marcelo
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nobuo Ogashiwa
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards, marcelo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> El 23/07/2004, a las 3:04, Nobuo OGASHIWA escribi♭:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We have submitted an updated draft.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nagami-mip6-nemo-
> >>>>>>> multihome-
> >>>>>>> fixed-network-01.txt
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  Abstract
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>      Multi-homing technology improves the availability of host 
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>      network connectivity. Since the node and network behavior of
> >>>>>>>      mobile networking and fixed networking are different, the
> >>>>>>>      different architecture has been discussed and proposed. This
> >>>>>>>      document proposes the common architecture both for mobile 
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>      fixed networking environment, using the mobile IP and NEMO.
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>      proposed architecture only requires a modification of the
> >>>>>>> mobile
> >>>>>>>      IP and NEMO so that multiple-CoA can be used. In addition,
> >>>>>>>      multiple HAs which are located in different place, are
> >>>>>>> required
> >>>>>>>      for redundancy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is nice if we can have a presentation solot for the draft.
> >>>>>>> We have sent a request to WG chairs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We appreciate any comments, questions or suggestions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nobuo Ogashiwa
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> At Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:47:38 +0900,
> >>>>>>> Thierry Ernst wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The San Diego meeting is fast approaching. The NEMO WG is
> >>>>>>>> scheduled
> >>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> Monday 2nd August.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ---------- Drafty Draft Agenda
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> During that meeting, we will
> >>>>>>>> definitely speak about:
> >>>>>>>> - status of the WG and WG documents
> >>>>>>>> - WG charter and WG direction
> >>>>>>>> - Results of WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nemo-terminology
> >>>>>>>> - Results of WG Last Call for draft-ietf-nemo-equirements
> >>>>>>>> - Multihoming Problem Statement (draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Other topics on which we wish to have contributions:
> >>>>>>>> - MIB for NEMO Basic Support
> >>>>>>>> - Securiry Threat Analysis
> >>>>>>>> - Analysis of the Solution Space for Route Optimization
> >>>>>>>> - Prefix Delegation for Mobile Networks
> >>>>>>>> - NEMO Home Network models
> >>>>>>>> (draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-00)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----------- Call for Participation
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you intend to request a slot for a topic related with the 
> >>>>>>>> above
> >>>>>>>> listed topic, or to add an item, please send your request to 
> >>>>>>>> both
> >>>>>>>> chairs
> >>>>>>>> by July 20th. Requests must be justified and will be accepted
> >>>>>>>> based
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> priorities of the WG and time allowed during our slot.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ----------- Submitted Drafts
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also, if you have submitted a new draft since last meeting, or
> >>>>>>>> intend
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> submit one before the deadline, please inform TJ and myself so
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> can list all the ACTIVE drafts in the reading list.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Note that I've seen a couple of drafts passing on the
> >>>>>>>> IETF-Announce
> >>>>>>>> Mailing List, but these drafts were usually not announced on the
> >>>>>>>> NEMO
> >>>>>>>> ML. According to the new secretariat policy, it's now the
> >>>>>>>> responsability
> >>>>>>>> of the author to send a note to the NEMO ML.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> NEMO Chairs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>