Subject: RE: [nemo] Deployment Requirements

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:05:49 +0200

>
>> 1) we started a similar discussion on the thread called:
>> "Distributing the Mobile Prefix in the visited network" last
November.
>>
>> 2) I pointed out to Roberto that there is a MANEMO ML. Since
>> that thread, no big news on MANEMO; we are still working on
>> the Problem statement, and version 03 of Tree Discovery was
published:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-tree-discove
>> ry-03.txt
>
>Thanks Pascal.

[Pascal] Hi Roberto

>I think that at that time I didn't understand that MANEMO targets a
>slightly different scenario:
>
>- In our scenario, we don't focus on nested NEMO (MANET inside a mobile
>network) but on MANETs formed by mobile networks. As far as I
>understand, MANEMO and TD focus on nested NEMO. Do you see applications
>of the TD strategy in the scenario we consider?

[Pascal] MRs own Mobile Networks. As MRs form a nested NEMO dynamically,
don't they form a MANET of Mobile Networks? I'm sorry I fail to see the
distinction. Could you please elaborate?
Please note that when routers move together as a solid, this is a single
NEMO not a nested one.

>- In our opinion, the adhoc routing should be indipendent from the NEMO
>protocol. We assume that a routing protocol takes care of delivering
>packets from node A to node B in the adhoc domain, so that node A and
>node B are 'logically' on the same link, even if they communicate
>through multihop. This can be achieved with various strategies. It is,
>maybe, an implementation related concept. Nevertheless, we think it
>allows to keep NEMO (or other mobility management approaches)
>indipendent from the specific routing protocol of the MANET

[Pascal] Using a number of routing protocols is a usual thing. At the
extreme, NEMO will inject a default route in the RIB while MANET will
inject host routes. In fact, there is a fuzzy zone where both a MANET
and NEMO-RO can inject prefixes and potentially cause the conflict. The
redistribution rules will take care of the precedence in such a case,
based on security policies and costs.

Then again, I'm not sure what you mean by independent. It is a single
router and sharing the RIB is a form of interaction. MANET can provide a
structure to the nested NEMO (like TD does) and find the default route
to the Internet so that MRs can bind Home over one another. MANET can
even locate a HA for NEMO in the case of a Mobile Home.

IMHO, there is value in understanding such interactions. The interaction
between TD and RRH for instance, is a proof of such a value. This
enables to design a simple MANET that provides for the nested NEMO
needs. As a result, the MR gets both local and global routing integrated
in its RIB.

This is the MANEMO concept, at the end of the day. 

What do you think?

Pascal