Subject: [Mip4] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:30:01 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Mobility for IPv4 Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4
	Author(s)       : K. Leung, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.txt
	Pages           : 24
	Date            : 2008-01-04

This document describes a protocol for supporting Mobile Networks
between a Mobile Router and a Home Agent by extending the Mobile IPv4
protocol.  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-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.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-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.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-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.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.
-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:38:18 +0100

Dear MIP4 WG,

The seventh version of the NEMOv4 draft is corresponding
to a change in format - now the draft exists as XML source. The XML can
be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.xml

Alex

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.txt

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

---

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:30:39 +0800

Hi,all
	In the section 7, to co-located mode MR, it seems that it can also
send traffics based on the optimization and only tunnel once with the CoA as
its source address. Right?
	Best Rgds,
Thanks,

John.zhao

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:20:53 +0100

John.zhao wrote:
> Hi,all In the section 7, to co-located mode MR, it seems that it can 
> also send traffics based on the optimization and only tunnel once 
> with the CoA as its source address. Right?

Hi John, thanks for pointing this.  The intention is indeed to have the
simple encapsulation (optimization of double encapsulation) described in
a separate document and not here.

I would like to know which paragraph in section 7 read made you think
optimization is used?  I would like to identify it and keep track.

I could think of the following in section 7:
> For optimization, the Home Agent SHOULD only encapsulate the packet 
> with the tunnel header (source IP address set to Home Agent and 
> destination IP address set to CoA) for Collocated CoA mode.

Also know that I'm not sure who/how/when can make modifications to the
document, since it's advanced a bit past the WG discussion.

Alex

---

From: Christophe Janneteau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:42:37 +0100

John, Alex,

My understanding is that the base NEMOv4 specification 
(draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-07.txt) requires double encapsulation to 
be used for the Foreign Agent CoA mode, but makes it optional for the 
Collocated CoA mode. In other words, in Collocated CoA mode, the spec 
allows (and actually encourages = SHOULD) the simple (bi-directional) 
encapsulation between MR and HA to be used.

The double encapsulation is required in the FA CoA mode, to ensure 
transparency with respect to legacy (RFC3344) Foreign Agent. If simple 
encapsulation only would be used, the FA would need to be able to 
forward a packet addressed to an LFN address while only the MR's HoA is 
present in the FA's visitor list...and the packet would be dropped. The 
draft "FA extensions to NEMOv4 Base" (draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa-01.txt) 
aims at addressing this specific issue by defining extension to FA to 
make it NEMOv4 aware and thus allow the use of simple encapsulation 
(i.e. of the sole FA<->HA tunnel and nor more the additional inner 
MR_HOA<-->HA tunnel).

Can authors confirm this was the intention of the two different specs 
(i.e. the NEMOv4 base spec allowing simple encapsulation for the 
Collocated CoA mode, while a separate doc specifying it for the FA CoA 
mode)?

I have not checked the last version of the base NEMOv4 spec to determine 
if the current text is explicit enough about these aspects. John what do 
you think?

Thanks
Christophe.

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> also send traffics based on the optimization and only tunnel once with 
>> the CoA as its source address. Right?
>

---

From: "George Tsirtsis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:27:23 -0500

Hi Christophe,

Yes, I think your understanding is correct. Please review
draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa-01.txt and provide me (and/or the list) with
comments. I would appreciate it since we are now going to try to
progress this draft too.

Regards
George

---

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:48:25 +0800

Hi,Christophe and Alex
 	Yes,I think I have though it as you have just mentioned below. But,
in section 7, just as Alex has pointed, the first paragraph mention that HA
can use the optimization encapsulation, but to those packets sent from MR,
there isn't the related choice. So I just pointed this one hope authors can
clarify and keep the consensus with that <fa-01> doc.
	
	Best Rgds,
Thanks.
John.zhao