Subject: [nemo] movement in Nemo

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 21:01:22 -0000

draft-ernst-nemo-requirements-00.txt states:
     " In the NEMO WG, some routers may effectively move arbitrary, but
      this is not a common case. NEMO aims at providing Internet"

We should not presume whether it's common or not, should we? Either we
support a form of movement that we qualify, or we do not. 

Nemo aims at providing Internet access to the MNets while Manet aims at
providing any to any communication in the mobile cloud. Regardless of
whether the relative or the global movement of the mobile routers is
'rapid' or not. 

I understand that we may have to qualify the word rapid, for instance in
terms of reachability duration at L2, and maybe evaluate the solutions
for their resilience to rapid movement.

Pascal

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:44:20 -0800

>       this is not a common case. NEMO aims at providing Internet"

These phrases do not make sense to me. Is sentence #1 supposed to say 
"some routers may effectively move arbitrarily"? What exactly does that 
mean?

And sentence fragment #2: NEMO aims at providing Internet... Does that 
mean continuous, mobile Internet conncetivity?

> support a form of movement that we qualify, or we do not. 

I'm not sure what is supposed to be common or not?

> whether the relative or the global movement of the mobile routers is

NEMO does not deal with dynamic network formation and healing. It deals 
with changing where a network is connected to the Internet.

The network can be dynamic, in a MANET sense, or just a static net. We 
are talking about how to enable the Mobile Routers that connect it to 
the 'net.

> for their resilience to rapid movement.

Ideally, we would like to support rapid movement, which is also the aim 
of Mobile IP. However, with complicated sequences of signaling to 
authorize/authenticate/etc., and with routing changes as in RO, there 
may be a journey to get there.

-TJ

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Nov 2002 11:31:41 +0100

> for their resilience to rapid movement.

Hi Pascal.

I'm reacting on the "rapid" issues because I usually do, hope to get
some relevant feedback.

Please remark that this is a digression from your main point.  I do
agree that it is a good idea to evaluate solutions against resilience
to rapid movement.

The way I understand current "rapid" protocols for mobility is that
they assume that an MH is attaching to one AR1 and then to the next
AR2.  Since AR1 and AR2 are relatively close and connected by faster
links than the wireless, it is possible to speed up the message
exchanges that normally go on the wireless part by substituting with
messages on the wired part.

But how is this feasible in the NEMO context, where MH visits a mobile
link and then an AR, like this:

             ------------------wired
              |            |   
            -----        ----- 
           | AR1 |      | AR2 |
            -----        ----- 
              |            |
           wireless     wireless
              |   
            ----- 
           | MR  |
            ----- 
              |
            -----------
                   |   
                 ----- 
                | AR3 |
                 ----- 
                   |
                wireless
                   |   
                 ----- 
                | MH  |
                 ----- 

Assume MH is moving between AR3 and AR2.  Remark that AR2 and AR3 are
no longer connected by a fast wired link, but by links including
wireless.  As such, what is the possible way to design a "rapidity"
supporting protocol for handovers in NEMO...

Alex