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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

I have not looked into HAHA yet, but from your
description below it does not seem to cause
routing problems. It is common to advertise
prefixes from multiple locations.

--Jari

RYUJI WAKIKAWA kirjoitti:
> Hi Jari,
>
> I want to make sure one item whether it breaks new requirements or not.
>
> We have been discussing multiple HAs usage (global-haha) in NEMO WG.
> It is not clear yet whether we will pick this in a WG item, but maybe
> in future.
> This global HAHA advertises block of home prefixes to BGP in anycast
> fashion,
> but dynamic change of BGP entries is not occurred.
>
> regards,
> ryuji
>
>
> On 2006/12/04, at 23:45, 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).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>