Subject: Re: RO approaches and the proposed charter (was Re: About the proposed charter and global HAHA (was Re: [nemo] RE: About route aggregation in global HAHA
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], ml-nemo WG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:32:43 +0300
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>

El 21/04/2006, a las 10:26, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribió:
....

> In fact, there could be a very limited set of mobile ISP consortiums,
> and a single prefix in the DFZ for each of those.

Interesting....

However, this is NOT presented anywhere in the draft

actually what it is actually in the draft is

5.1  Initial routing

5.1.1  External routing

    Sites are expected to be connected locally to the internet, via the
    network of one or more service provider.  Each site has a default
    route to the internet via that connection.

                                     . ..   /
             ---------          ........ ..;.           ---------
            |         |       ..          / .....      |         |
            |     ::/0 ->  ....          ;      ...  <- ::/0     |
            |         ============HAHA=TUNNEL===========         |
            |         | ....           ;          .... |         |
            |         | .<- Home::/32 /  Home::/32 ->..|         |
             --------- ...           ;             ...  ---------
                         .....      /               ..
                                .  ;....      ......
                                  /  ..........

    In return, each site advertises the aggregation that encompasses the
    Distributed Home Network aggregation back into the service provider
    network, to the outside world (the internet).

Please note that we have sites and providers here and the prefix 
announced belongs to the SITE and NOT to the provider. This i read as 
PI for end sites being injected in the DFZ.

I couldn't find the concept of mobile ISP consortiums anywhere in the 
draft, which seems to be a key role player in your supposed deployment 
model (but maybe i missed that...)

OTOH, i did see several emails from potential users that claimed that 
mobile platforms needed PI addressing

now these are the users that will be deploying this stuff and they said 
they want PI for this...

> So yes, like anything else, global HAHA could be deployed stupidly,
> but guess what, people will know better.
>

Now maybe may idea about how to deploy this is indeed stupid, but what 
can i say, this is what i could infer from what i read in the draft and 
the comments in the mailing list.... probably i am too short...

regards, marcelo

> Pascal
>