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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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).

For me the change is welcome and am surprised this text isn't already
in the draft, because we discussed precisely this at large, and I think
reflects common thinking here.  There's a req approaching this idea
(3.7. 'Scalability') which could be extended with this text.

This is also to mention that apart from the NEMOv6 protocol, and apart
from this requirements document, this requriement may be challenged in
certain contexts, especially knowing that network mobility with BGP has
been shown to be working for a small setting.

Alex

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>