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

["Hesham Soliman" <[e-mail]>]

Jari, 

It's hard to disagree with the requirement. As you say the current solution
doesn't break this requirement so it might only be useful for future work,
but it's fine to have it. 

Hesham 

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[e-mail]] 
 > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 1:46 AM
 > To: IETF NEMO WG
 > Cc: Ross Callon
 > Subject: [nemo] new requirement for draft-ietf-nemo-requirements
 > 
 > 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.
 > 
 > 
 >