Subject: RE: [nemo] RFC 3963 on Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol - route optimization?

From: "Hsu, Julian P" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:39:11 -0800

Hi folks,

I'm wondering if someone could answer a newbie (first time mailing list
poster) question.  I notice that the RFC says that it does not describe
route optimization of traffic between nodes in the mobile network and
correspondent nodes, and later that it allows route optimization for
traffic originating from the Mobile Router.  Is there a discussion
somewhere about the reasons for excluding mobile network nodes from the
route optimization process?

I couldn't tell from my readings of rfc 3775 on Mobility Support in IPv6
and this RFC 3963 why it would not be straightforward to have the NEMO
home agent allow route optimization to mobile network nodes known to be
attached to a mobile router..

Thanks!

Julian 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 3:56 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [nemo] RFC 3963 on Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support
Protocol

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        RFC 3963

        Title:      Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol
        Author(s):  V. Devarapalli, R. Wakikawa, A. Petrescu,
                    P. Thubert
        Status:     Standards Track
        Date:       January 2005
        Mailbox:    [email-masked], [email-masked],
                    [email-masked],
                    [email-masked]
        Pages:      33
        Characters: 75955
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:    None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support-03.txt

        URL:        ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3963.txt

This document describes the Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support
protocol that enables Mobile Networks to attach to different points in
the Internet.  The protocol is an extension of Mobile IPv6 and allows
session continuity for every node in the Mobile Network as the network
moves.  It also allows every node in the Mobile Network to be reachable
while moving around.  The Mobile Router, which connects the network to
the Internet, runs the NEMO Basic Support protocol with its Home Agent.
The protocol is designed so that network mobility is transparent to the
nodes inside the Mobile Network.

This document is a product of the Network Mobility Working Group of the
IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and
status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to [email-masked].  Requests to be added to or
deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to
[email-masked].

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an
EMAIL message to [email-masked] with the message body 
help: ways_to_get_rfcs.  For example:

        To: [email-masked]
        Subject: getting rfcs

        help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to [email-masked].  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
[email-masked].  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.

Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza
USC/Information Sciences Institute

...

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader 
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version
of the RFCs.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:04:30 +0100

Hsu, Julian P wrote:
> poster) question.  I notice that the RFC says that it does not
> describe route optimization of traffic between nodes in the mobile
> network and correspondent nodes, and later that it allows route
> optimization for traffic originating from the Mobile Router.

Yes, exactly, MR can use RO just like any MH (Mobile Host, what people
call MN).  An application running on MR may easily enjoy the benefits of
RO as per RFC3775.

> Is there a discussion somewhere about the reasons for excluding
> mobile network nodes from the route optimization process?

RO discussion in the early archives in mobilenetworks.org/nemo/archives.

An application on LFN initiates communication to CN.  The MR is just in 
between and tunnels/detunnels.  The LFN does not implement RO because 
it's not Mobile IPv6 node.

How could MR send RR (Return Routability) tests to CN if that MR's Home 
Address is different than the LFN's address.  These two addresses are 
obviously different.  In order to make this "proxy" RR  (MR does RR "on 
behalf" of LFN) work there is need of some insurance at MR that it 
trusts the LFN and vice-versa.

> I couldn't tell from my readings of rfc 3775 on Mobility Support in
> IPv6 and this RFC 3963 why it would not be straightforward to have
> the NEMO home agent allow route optimization to mobile network nodes
> known to be attached to a mobile router..

It's less a matter of HA, than a matter of MR and LFN.  LEss, but no 0.

I imagine HA uses its BC when participating in RR for rfc3775, and LFN 
does not have an entry in the BC (MR does).  The NEMO prefix may be in 
the BC, ok, but HA could not participate in RR tests for all Home 
Addresses of the NEMO prefix.

Why are you asking?

Alex

---

From: "T.J.Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:40:18 -0800

Hi Julian,

As Alexandru pointed out, for the mobile network node to employ route 
optimization, it would probably have to be mobility-aware, meaning that 
it's running Mobile IPv6 or something similar.

If you are engineering the entire system, you could think about 
dynamically changing the routing of the mobile network so that it's 
routed directly to the Access Router on the visited link. So at the 
beginning, traffic would arrive at the HA_mr, and after the MR is at 
access router AR1 for a while, the routing infrastructure routes the 
MNP to AR1, and AR1 somehow knows that the MR is there (think 
Fully-Enabled case), so it stops receiving traffic on the HA_MR tunnel, 
and starts receiving it directly on the egress interface.

Of course this is just 1 of many ways to do it.

TJ

On Jan 25, 2005, at 9:39 AM, Hsu, Julian P wrote:

> IPv6

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:58:28 +0900

Dear Julian,

> I'm wondering if someone could answer a newbie (first time mailing
> list poster) question.  I notice that the RFC says that it does not
> optimization for traffic originating from the Mobile Router.  Is there
> a discussion somewhere about the reasons for excluding mobile network
> nodes from the route optimization process?

Please look into the archives of the NEMO ML which dates back from the
early discussions and the set up of the WG. Requirements for the NEMO BS
solution specified in RFC 3963 are explained in
draft-ietf-nemo-requirements 

About RO, please read the NEMO charter, it explains the process of the
WG. We are now due to release a RO problem statement, there was a lot of
discussion last fall on the mailing list., and a couple of drat
(draft-watarti, draft-thubert and draft-zhao). All of the documents
are available on the "additional NEMO web page" which is linked
from the NEMO WG chater web page.

The NEMO WG will decide to pursue the work on RO or not once a 
proper IETF WG RO problem statement draft-ietf is issued  (hopefully out
of the 3 above cited drafts). Note that there are also a lot of reseach
papers which address the RO issues.

Thierry

> IPv6 and this RFC 3963 why it would not be straightforward to have the
> NEMO home agent allow route optimization to mobile network nodes known
> to be attached to a mobile router..
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Julian 
> 
> moves.  It also allows every node in the Mobile Network to be
> reachable while moving around.  The Mobile Router, which connects the
> network to the Internet, runs the NEMO Basic Support protocol with its
> Home Agent. The protocol is designed so that network mobility is
> transparent to the nodes inside the Mobile Network.
> 
> This document is a product of the Network Mobility Working Group of
> the IETF.
> 
> Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
> an EMAIL message to [email-masked] with the message body 
> author of the RFC in question, or to [email-masked]. 
> Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are
> for unlimited distribution.
> 
> [email-masked].  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to
> RFC Authors, for further information.
> 
> 

-- 
Thierry Ernst, PhD
WIDE, Jun Murai Lab., Keio University, Japan
Nautilus6 Chair: http://www.nautilus6.org
Web: http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/
T:+81-44-580-1600 F:+81-44-580-1437
--