Subject: [nemo] Rechartering: FMIPv6 for NEMO

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 07:49:30 +0900

Dear all,

Shouldn't we take a look at how FMIPv6 should work for NEMO Basic
Support ? Isn't there any other protocol we need to fx ?

Thierry

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 07:45:18 +0800

> Support ? Isn't there any other protocol we need to fx ?

I am not a FMIP expert, but AFAICR, FMIP does not concern the HA.  FMIP
only concerns the mobile node and pAR, nAR.  Thus, NEMO-BS should work
independently with NEMO-BS.  There is nothing to fix, be it the FMIP
between MR and nAR,pAR or when the MR is a nAR or pAR (might be very
slow to have MR acting as FMIP-enabled AR for its VMNs though).

However, when we do have NEMO RO, then I forsee there may be a need to
address FMIP.  But that is jumping the gun a bit, since we have not even
decide we want to RO.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:08:34 -0800

> Support ? Isn't there any other protocol we need to fx ?

not for NEMO basic support. the access router always
sees the CoA of the mobile router. never the actual
mobile network traffic. so just setting up forwarding
from the old CoA to the new CoA is enough for NEMO.
FMIPv6 already does this.

Vijay

---

From: Christophe Janneteau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:16:09 +0100

Hi All,

I have the same understanding as Chan-Wah. I am not an FMIP expert
neither but to my understanding FMIP deals with redirecting the traffic
sent to the MN's oCoA (arriving at pAR) to the MN's nCoA (at the nAR).
Binding at the pAR is between oCoA and nCoA, not HoA.

When MN is an MR using NEMO-BS, then traffic to MNNs is always tunneled
to the MR'sCoA (thanks to HA). As a result it is sufficient for MR's to
use standard FMIPv6 to support redirection of traffic for MNNs between
pAR and nAR.

Christophe

---

From: Koshiro MITSUYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:19:04 +0900

Hi all,

At this momemnt, I agree that nothing to be changed in FMIPv6 for NEMO
Basic support.  But I am just curious what happend in the case MR is
the FMIP-AR for example.

Additionaly don't you think it is a bit dangerous to say that without
confirmation?  I think it's a good time to do quick review FMIPv6 for
NEMO and to do some epxeriment with implementations.

If WG has interesting, I am willing to do experiment because we have
both FMIPv6 and NEMO implementation on the same platform (SHISA and
TARZAN).  Maybe we can ask a hand from Linux guys?

regards,
Koshiro

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:55:51 -0800

Folks,

Our revised charter needs to stick to outstanding issues that

(a) are understood
(b) affect a significant number of the realistic deployment scenarios
(c) are not research problems
(d) follow sound architectural principles w.r.t. Internet engineering

Whether FMIPv6 affects NEMO, or vice-versa, should be determined  
before we discuss whether it's important enough to add to the  
charter. Otherwise, it does not satisfy requirement (a).

So it's fine to discuss the topic, but premature to discuss it in the  
same sentence as the charter.

TJ