Subject: [nemo] Meeting minutes from IETF55

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:16:24 -0800

Hi folks,

The meeting minutes have been posted to the web page at:

http://www.nal.motlabs.com/nemo/ietf55/nemo-ietf55-minutes.txt

Special thanks to everyone who contributed, including Greg Daley, Pascal
Thubert, JinHyeock Choi, Ryuji Wakikawa and Thierry. These minutes are very
complete.

-TJ

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: 05 Dec 2002 20:51:13 +0100

> The meeting minutes have been posted to the web page at:

Thanks all for compiling the minutes.

Allow me to bring forth item #6 "MIPv6 MNs can use link as home or
visited link."

I understand this requirement as a scenario where a mobile network
moves around and has an HA internal in the mobile network.  As such, a
host that is normally fixed in the mobile network and moves as a unit
together the mobile network, it could at a certain moment detach from
the mobile network and become itself mobile.  Once that host (a pure
MIPv6 MN?) is out of the mobille network it will send BUs to the HA
that is in the mobile network and everything is required to work just
fine.

Is this the requirement #6?

If yes, then I would like to mention one other scenario that could be
turned into a requirement:

Consider two MRs at home, having a unique HA.  Then, the first MR
stays at home but the second MR moves away from home and towards under
the first MR.  That could be seen as a kind of nested mobility I
believe.  A more generic question stemming from this could be whether
two MRs of the same HA are required to be able to nest one under the
other or not.  Or maybe this is already covered by another
requirement?

Another requirement question that I have is whether the ARs that
accept the visits of various MRs are required to advertise themselves
as default routers; this has implications on whether the MR uses its
routes from its "default router list" or it must use routes from its
"routing table".  E.g., if AR doesn't advertise itself as a default
router, then MR should have an entry in its routing table pointing
towards HA through the AR (that is HA->AR but not ::->AR).  Of course,
this is probably not reasonable to ask from ARs because ARs are
normally far away from the DFZ.

Alex

> #1 continuous internet connection while MR moving.
> 
> #2 basic support mobile IP and reverse tunnel
> 
> #3 transparency, nodes in NEMO can be unaware of movement. Simple IPv6
>    node continues to work.
> 
> #4 CN's do not need to be aware of MIPv6 MNN being in NEMO.
> 
> #5 Fixed Nodes and Mobile IP mobile nodes.
> 
> #6 MIPv6 MNs can use link as home or visited link
> 
> #7 Multihoming works : incorporate EN's ideas on distinctions between
>    these.
> 
> #8 Co-operate with other groups doing AAA&etc.
> 
> #9 Scalability: support large number of mobile networks, 
> 
> #10 Support roaming in different domains of control: one reason for
>     mobile IP (since supports).
> 
> #11 NEMO is a stub network, not asked to carry traffic for nodes which
>     aren't part of the mobile Net.
>     
> #12 MNN's Above IP layer shouldn't be affected by the mobility.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 14:35:57 -0800

> #6 MIPv6 MNs can use link as home or visited link

where can I find more details on this?

Vijay

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:18:05 -0800

> other or not.  Or maybe this is already covered by another

How would this be different than a MN nesting under a MR? The second MR that
attaches to the first MR's mobile network will just look like an MN to the
MR and HA, right? Or is there some detail that makes it a different case?

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: 06 Dec 2002 11:56:11 +0100

"T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]> writes:
> How would this be different than a MN nesting under a MR? The second
> MR that attaches to the first MR's mobile network will just look
> like an MN to the MR and HA, right? Or is there some detail that
> makes it a different case?

Indeed it's not much different.

There are some "nitty-gritty" details we noticed in practice about MR2
when is at home (neighbouring MR1 and HA) has ND entries that MUST be
invaldated when the MR2 goes nesting under MR1.

Additional detail is when several MRs have the same HA and are nesting
one under the other the tunnel headers they built they all have the
same destination address, the HA.  So if three nested MRs then the
three tunnels will contain redundant information (3 times the same
destination address).

Maybe in a first step we could require arbitrary number of MRs of same
HA to be able to nest under each other and in later steps we could
require a sort of optimization of "nested MRs same HA" case with sort
of Deering-Zill tunnels.  Or maybe this has already been discussed.

Alex

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:16:23 -0600

Vijay,
  What this simply means that we may have two kinds of MNs in nemo,
LMNs and
VMNs.
In MIPv6 there are home and visited link concepts. So for VMNs  the link 
connected to NEMO becomes a visited link. For LMNs, the link could be 
their home link.

Regards,

-- 
Behcet