Re: [nemo] RE: RO between MR and CN

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Thu, 14 October 2004 10:11 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25710 for <nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:11:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CI2Xg-00037z-2C; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:09:04 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CI2WL-0002bI-Rp for nemo@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:07:42 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25425 for <nemo@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:07:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.136.123]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CI2hQ-0006Ax-Vb for nemo@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:19:12 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with SMTP id DC2D12EFEC; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:07:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (luciernaga.it.uc3m.es [163.117.140.159]) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522D92EFA1; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:06:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [nemo] RE: RO between MR and CN
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: Masafumi Watari <watari@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20041014.020845.21897134.watari@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC2C093A@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <20041014.020845.21897134.watari@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-qHmakYyv6gKNF72Ex0Dt"
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Message-Id: <1097748452.2464.42.camel@acorde>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:07:32 +0200
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd
Cc: nemo@ietf.org, María Calderón <maria@it.uc3m.es>, pthubert@cisco.com
X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:nemo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Pascal, Masafumi,

El mié, 13-10-2004 a las 19:08, Masafumi Watari escribió:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:34:06 +0200,
> "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Tania
> > 
> > I was thinking things like of snooping. MR might intercept all packets to LFN, recognize a HoT and keep it. I remember discussing that with Alex long ago... Anyway, we try to say "don't take that path" as opposed to describe a solution in details.
> 
> I don't think its possible to provide RO while keeping the RR function
> of MIPv6 untouched.  It would probably require modification of the
> packet at MR to use the HoA opt and the routing header for every
> packet, if we want to keep the MIPv6 spec as is.

	Yes, one possible solution is the MR performing all the RR and RO
signalling on behalf of the LFNs of the NEMO, in order to provide RO for
LFNs that are communicating to CNs outside the NEMO. This is actually
the solution we have proposed in MIRON (see my previous e-mail if you
want a pointer to it), so the MR, as you said, has to process the
packets sent/received by a LFN in order to insert HoA DO/remove RH. I
agree that it could have some performance concerns if the process is
performed to every LFN-CN "flow", but as we have already discussed in a
previous thread, some mechanism should be used to perform the RO in a
reasonable way.

> 
> > It seems preferable, for instance, to establish a MR-CR tunnel and exchange fine grained routes for MNPs over the tunnel (route projection).
> 
> I think I agree on this.

	This is, IMHO, a different approach, in which the RO requires some
support from the routing infrastructure, and that present some
advantages. But, OTOH, solutions based on MR-CN RO are also interesting
IMHO, as an approach that does not require support in the routing
infrastructure and puts the RO support functionality only in the edges,
i.e. the CN and the MR (if the transparency to the MNNs is required, the
MR is the other edge in which RO mechanisms can be added).

	What do you think?

	Kind Regards,

	Carlos J.
> 
> Masafumi Watari
> 
> > Pascal
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tânia Pinto Calçada [mailto:tcalcada@inescporto.pt]
> > > Sent: mercredi 13 octobre 2004 13:16
> > > To: nemo@ietf.org
> > > Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> > > Subject: RO between MR and CN
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I am interested in route optimization between the MR and the CN. I read the taxonomy draft
> > > (draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-02.txt), and several other documents related to RO:
> > > 
> > > draft-jeong-nemo-ro-ndproxy-02.txt
> > > 
> > > draft-leekj-nemo-ro-pd-02.txt
> > > 
> > > draft-na-nemo-gen-ro-model-00.txt
> > > 
> > > draft-na-nemo-path-control-header-00.txt
> > > 
> > > draft-wakikawa-nemo-orc-00.txt
> > > 
> > > ROProblem.txt
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I also read some threads of the NEMO mailing list http://www1.ietf.org/mail-
> > > archive/web/nemo/current/index.html <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-
> > > archive/web/nemo/current/index.html> , however I am still looking for a document that
> > > describes a solution for the RO between the MR and the CN.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The taxonomy draft says at section 2:
> > > 
> > > "A major issue with this form of optimization is that the end-to-end
> > > 
> > >    principle of the MIPv6 Reverse Routability (RR) test is broken.  The
> > > 
> > >    RR test is meant to ensure the care-of address (CoA) and the home
> > > 
> > >    address (HoA) are collocated. With a mobile network, when the MR
> > > 
> > >    performs RO on behalf of the MNNs, the CoA in BU will be the MR's
> > > 
> > >    CoA.  Thus, a MNN is reachable via the CoA, but not at the CoA.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >    Some tricks may be performed on the fly by the MRs but it seems that
> > > 
> > >    a clean MR-to-CN optimization for Nemo will impact the CN function."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Can somebody point the "tricks" that may be performed, or indicate a document that explores
> > > this subject?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > Tania Calcada
> > 
> > 
> > 
-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano - http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
GPG FP: 58C3 4227 AF8D 01D4 5A09  A617 E6F2 B23E DAD6 AA40