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

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

>
> case 2) the prefix belongs to the yet another service provider (xSP)
>
> In this case, the xSP has an address block just for multihoming 
> service.
> The xSP contract to the ISP1 and the ISP2.
> Under the contract, xSP setup HAs into ISP1 and ISP2's network, and
> the xSP's address block is advertised from the ISP1 and ISP2.
>
> We are assuming this case.
>

Ok.
Then the ISP1 and ISP2 announce the complete block of the xSP i.e. a 
/32 or they just announce the /48 that corresponds to the nemo that is 
multihomed?


thanks for your answers,
regards, marcelo

>
> Regards,
>
> Nobuo Ogashiwa
>
>
>
>> Regards, marcelo
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>