headers
Chan-Wah Ng | 1 Mar 2005 03:39
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt

Hello Marcelo,

On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 21:28 +0100, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Hi Chan-Wah,
> 
> 
-- 8< consensus portions snipped >8 --

> >>
> >>
> >> Section 4.3 Ingress Filtering states that:
> >>
> >>        A simple solution is to require all
> >>        MNNs to set their default router to the MR that advertises the 
> >> MNP
> >>        the MNNs configured their addresses from.
> >>
> >> Now this is not simple as it seems.
> >> What if you have the following configuration
> >>
> >>
> >>     +----+           +-----+
> >>     | MR1|           | MR2 |
> >>     +----+           +-----+
> >>       |                 |
> >>     -----------------------
> >>               |
> >>             +----+
> >>             | R  |
> >>             +----+
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Chan-Wah Ng | 1 Mar 2005 09:29
Picon

Re: CFP NEMO WG slot

Hello Chairs,

I would like to request a slot for 

(1) [TOPIC]   the update of draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issue.  
    [ISSUES]  The main focus here is to get consensus on the new text on
              identifying which issues to be solved by the WG.  
    [SPEAKER] myself
    [DRAFT]   draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt
    [LENGTH]  15-20 mins
    [WG RELEVANCE]  Its a WG document .... :)

If time allows, I'll like to request for the slot that was canceled in
San Diego:

(2) [TOPIC]   Security issue of sending prefix-scoped BU to CN  
    [ISSUES]  Raise WG awareness on the inadequacy of RR with
              prefix-scoped BU  
    [SPEAKER] myself
    [DRAFT]   draft-ng-nemo-rrnp-00.txt
    [LENGTH]  5 mins
    [WG RELEVANCE]  Its a consideration for the WG when analyzing
                    NEMO-Extended.

Lastly, I presume the chairs will be handling the issue of WG
RO-Analsys/Problem-Statement draft.  Let me know if I presume wrongly. 

/rgds
/cwng
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Seongho Cho | 3 Mar 2005 07:21
Picon

Re: draft-zhao-mip6-rr-ext-01

 Hi Fan,

 I read your RR extension draft, draft-zhao-mip6-rr-ext-01.txt. 
 I think this draft can be quite informative for the RO solution in NEMO.

 But I have some questions on the assumption and mechanism.

 In Section 3, other assumptions seems reasonable. But, I think an unmalicious 
 CN should be explained concretely. I think the unmalicious HA is quite 
 different with the unmalicious CN. Can you explain CN assumption in detail?

 In Subsection 4.7, to provide the non-repudiation, authentication and 
 signature are required, not just the public key. I think there should be
 more explaination or justification. 

 Bests, 
 Seongho
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thierry Ernst | 3 Mar 2005 14:08
Picon

NEMO WG Agenda Wed. 09 15:30-17:30


Dear all,
	

Here is a draft agenda - it's still unclear if we will speak about
prefix delegation or not. 

As usual, we will put an updated version on the additional web site:
http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/ietf62/nemo-ietf62-agenda.txt

Thierry
Attachment (nemo-ietf62-agenda.txt): application/octet-stream, 6044 bytes
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thierry Ernst | 3 Mar 2005 14:09
Picon

Re: CFP NEMO WG slot


Dear all,

> On 05/03/01 ChanWah wrote:
> Lastly, I presume the chairs will be handling the issue of WG
> RO-Analsys/Problem-Statement draft.  Let me know if I presume wrongly.

Yes. And I have asked Zhao to recap the current status of the NEMO RO
discussion since last IETF, so I hope you guys are able to sync
yourselves into a fair description of where we all are now.

Let me remind that we at least have the following 4 drafts on the table:

NEMO Route Optimization Problem Statement and Analysis
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhao-nemo-ro-ps-01.txt

Route Optimization with Nested Correspondent Nodes
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-watari-nemo-nested-cn-01.txt

Taxonomy of Route Optimization models in the Nemo Context
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-04.txt

NEMO Route Optimisation Problem Statement
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-clausen-nemo-ro-problem-statement-00.txt

Thierry.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
marcelo bagnulo braun | 3 Mar 2005 18:02
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt

Hi Chan-Wah,
>>
>> indeed, but this essentially means that you are adopting source 
>> address
>> depedendent (SAD) routing within the nemo, which one of the general
>> approaches that you can use for dealing with ingress filtering in
>> multihomed environments.
>
> Yes, in fact, having normal MMNs (host) to use different default 
> routers
> corresponding to different source address prefix is also a form of
> SAD-routing.
>

well, there is a difference between source routing and source address 
dependent routing, right?
I mean i think that MNM select among different default router is a form 
of source routing but not actually SAD routing. But in any case, i 
think this is perhaps too much distinction.

>
>> Now, this is not as simple as it seems since basically you are 
>> changing
>> the routing paradigm within the network, which may have unforeseen
>> consequences (i am not trying to spread fud here, just re-stating some
>> concerns that were expressed during the discussions of these topics in
>> multi6)
>>
>> In addition, R does no need to be a MR, it just need to implement SAD
>> routing, no need for the complete MR functionality.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Masafumi Watari | 4 Mar 2005 00:09
Picon

Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-04.txt]

Hi Chan-Wah,

Thanks for the submittion of the updated draft.

> Oh, and yes, as always comments/criticisms on the RO-taxonomy draft is
> always welcomed, regardless of harsh, gentle, or otherwise :).

At the moment, I just have one comment on Section 5.1 where you
describe the effects of additional signaling overhead.  The effect
mentioned in the section is focused on the number of signaling
messages to construct the optimal path, but I think its also important
to mention what the effect of these messages causes on handoffs in
terms of delay.  Since some solutions require collaboration of the MRs
to construct the optimal path, the change of attachment point of
root-MR (or other MR as well) requires a reconstruction of the path
for RO.  In general, more signaling messages means more time before
the communication resumes, so we would want to keep this at its
minimum.

So I think that there could be section where we analyze the effects of
handoff in relations with delay, number of signaling messages, and
nest level.  Maybe somewhere in Section 5 since it's a tradeoff of
having RO.

What do you think?

regards,
watari
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Chan-Wah Ng | 4 Mar 2005 03:38
Picon

Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-04.txt]

Hello Watari-san,

On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 08:09 +0900, Masafumi Watari wrote:
> Hi Chan-Wah,
> 
> Thanks for the submittion of the updated draft.
> 
> > Oh, and yes, as always comments/criticisms on the RO-taxonomy draft is
> > always welcomed, regardless of harsh, gentle, or otherwise :).
> 
> At the moment, I just have one comment on Section 5.1 where you
> describe the effects of additional signaling overhead.  The effect
> mentioned in the section is focused on the number of signaling
> messages to construct the optimal path, but I think its also important
> to mention what the effect of these messages causes on handoffs in
> terms of delay.  Since some solutions require collaboration of the MRs
> to construct the optimal path, the change of attachment point of
> root-MR (or other MR as well) requires a reconstruction of the path
> for RO.  In general, more signaling messages means more time before
> the communication resumes, so we would want to keep this at its
> minimum.
> 
> So I think that there could be section where we analyze the effects of
> handoff in relations with delay, number of signaling messages, and
> nest level.  Maybe somewhere in Section 5 since it's a tradeoff of
> having RO.
> 
> What do you think?

I think you've made a valid observation, and an excellent suggestion.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Chan-Wah Ng | 4 Mar 2005 05:10
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt

Hello Marcelo,

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 18:02 +0100, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Hi Chan-Wah,
> >>
> >> indeed, but this essentially means that you are adopting source 
> >> address
> >> depedendent (SAD) routing within the nemo, which one of the general
> >> approaches that you can use for dealing with ingress filtering in
> >> multihomed environments.
> >
> > Yes, in fact, having normal MMNs (host) to use different default 
> > routers
> > corresponding to different source address prefix is also a form of
> > SAD-routing.
> >
> 
> well, there is a difference between source routing and source address 
> dependent routing, right?
> I mean i think that MNM select among different default router is a form 
> of source routing but not actually SAD routing. But in any case, i 
> think this is perhaps too much distinction.

Well, I don't know.  The term "source-address-dependent" routing is new
to me.  To me, if the forwarding agent makes routing decision taking
into consideration the source-address of a packet, it is source routing.

> 
> >
> >> Now, this is not as simple as it seems since basically you are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
T.J.Kniveton | 4 Mar 2005 07:50

Jabber scribe

Can someone participate by being a Jabber scribe? Please volunteer now.

This is especially important, since I will not be able to attend 
Minneapolis, but I would like to participate remotely. So each Jabber 
scribe gets 1 free beer (or beverage of your choice) paid for by me at 
the next IETF meeting. :-)

-TJ
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane