Subject: [nemo] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:50:02 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Mobility Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: IPv4 Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol
	Author(s)	: K. Leung, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-00.txt
	Pages		: 23
	Date		: 2006-3-2
	
This document describes the support of Mobile Networks, as defined in
Mobile IPv4, by the Mobile Router and Home Agent.  A Mobile Router is
responsible for the mobility of one or more network segments or
subnets moving together.  The Mobile Router hides its mobility from
the nodes on the mobile network.  The nodes on the Mobile Network may
be fixed in relationship to the Mobile Router and may not have any
mobility function. Extensions to Mobile IPv4 are introduced to support Mobile Networks.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-00.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-00.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 17:13:57 +0100

Dear NEMO WG members,

We have just submitted WG item draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-00.txt containing 
a NEMOv4 proposal, extending Mobile IPv4 messages for Mobile Router 
support.  The contents are the same as when we presented in Vancouver.

Since Vancouver we have received a suggestion to include BID 
functionalities (Binding ID: draft-ogashiwa-mip4-bid-extension-00.txt); 
we suggested that the base spec to be kept simple and 
multi-homing/multi-path extensions to be pursued separately.

Please send in any other comments you may have on 
draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-00.txt.

Thanks,

Alex

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:30:56 +0900

Hi Alex

If the terms you defined in the draft are not different from the terms
which we defined in RFC3963, it's better to refer to 3963. If there is
slightly differenct meaning (i cannot see any), it's better to use
other name.

Do you try to implement nemov4?

ryuji

At Thu, 09 Mar 2006 17:13:57 +0100,

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:19:04 +0200

Hi Ryuji, thanks for the comments.

Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
> slightly different meaning (i cannot see any), it's better to use
> other name.

Generally throughout the document we've tried to stick to the same 
terminology as rfc3963 NEMOv6.  For example we used "Prefix Table", 
"Mobile Network Prefix", "Mobile Network", etc.

If you talk about the section "Terminology" of both documents, they only 
define the terms "Prefix Table" and "Mobile Network Prefix", in both 
documents.  The definition of "Mobile Network Prefix" used in RFC3963 
uses the word "IPv6", so it can't just be referred to in the v4 
document, must be re-defined.

The term "Prefix Table" in the v4 document is defined exactly as in the 
v6 document.  This could be referenced, instead of re-defined.  Do you 
suggest that we replace the definition in the v4 document with a pointer 
to the v6 document?

Any other term that strikes you as non-consistent between the two documents?

Or is your suggestion to actually speak different terms for v4 and v6 to 
avoid confusion?  E.g. for v4 use "Subnet Check Table" (instead of v6 
"Prefix Table").  I would suggest against this, because the already 
existing terminology difference in the mobility space between v4 and v6 
is very confusing already ("Registration Table" and "Binding Cache" is 
confusing).

> Do you try to implement nemov4?

Yes.  Do you know anybody else trying to implement it?

Alex