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

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

El 27/07/2004, a las 16:48, Nobuo OGASHIWA escribió:

>
> Dear Marcelo,
>
> At Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:15:33 +0200,
> marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> Basically, our assumption is the former.
>

Ok this means that xSP needs to have as many /32 as possible 
combinations of two providers which a site may multihome.
I mean, suppose that in a city there are n ISPs, then there are 
n(n-1)/2 combinations of 2 ISPs which a site can multihome to, right?
Perhaps these are too many /32s?
And i am only considering sites that multihome to 2 isps, you may need 
to consider the case when they multihome to 3, 4,...

Anyway, why do you need nemo or mipv6 to build such a solution?
I mean, imagine that you assign a /32 to each combination of any two 
ISPs in a city, and you assign a /48 of this /32 of each site that 
multihome to those two ISP. All you need now is that these two isps 
announce the /32. You don't need nemo for this AFAICS.

Regards, marcelo

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