Subject: RE: [nemo] Deployment Requirements

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:38:40 +0200

Hi:

Please note that 

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-discovery-03.txt

TD extends ND to build a logical tree structure out of scattered Mobile
Routers to shape the nested NEMO. While this type of operation is now
flourishing at layer 2 in the context of mesh networks, we are still
missing a similar technology at layer 3, in the context of Mobile
Routers in particular.

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chan-Wah Ng [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:16 PM
>To: Roberto Baldessari
>Cc: [email-masked]; Thierry Ernst; Ryuji Wakikawa
>Subject: RE: [nemo] Deployment Requirements
>
>Hello Roberto,
>
>Thanks for the input.  Very encouraging indeed to see more deployment
>scenario!
>
>On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 10:13 +0200, Roberto Baldessari wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Sorry for reacting with delay.
>>
>> We have followed the discussion on this mailing list for quite some
time
>> and have noticed that vehicular scenarios are getting more attention
in
>> NEMO. We are happy about this development.
>>
>> In Europe, the Car to Car Communication Consortium
>> (http://www.car-2-car.org/) aims at standardizing intervehicle
>> communication in Europe.
>> Other national projects like Network On Wheels in Germany
>> (http://www.network-on-wheels.de/) deal with that.
>>
>> NEMO support is taken into consideration as candidate to provide
global
>> IP mobility (and not only that).
>> Unfortunately, RFC 3963 does not meet all the requirements needed to
be
>> deployed in this scenario. Nevertheless, we think that vehicular
>> communications are potentially one of the main scenarios where NEMO
>> could be used. Therefore, it would be beneficial for both the WG and
the
>> companies involved in the projects if a NEMO evolution in this
direction
>> will take place.
>
>Specifically why NEMO-BS (i.e. RFC3963) does not meet the
>requirements?
>
>>
>> In the mentioned projects, vehicles form an ad hoc network which
>> operates in a licensed frequency band (5.9 GHz) using a communication
>> standard derived from 802.11 family (something similar to the US in
>> progress 802.11p standard). The system is mainly oriented to road
>> safety, but entertainment and convenient applications will definitely
>> have an important role, using different channels or an additional
>> network interface. A position based approach is used as routing
protocol
>> in the ad hoc domain and IPv6 was chosen as default protocol for
>> IP-based applications.
>>
>
>So the cars are communicating with each other using ad hoc mode.  How
>about intra-vehicular?  I expect that's where NEMO would step in.  Is
it
>within the scope of the consortium as well?
>
>> If you are interested, we can continue discussing about the scenario
and
>> how NEMO BS could be extended in order to be deployable in there.
>>
>
>Based on your scenario, I would expect that cars to talk to cars in
>ad-moc mode, but with in each car a NEMO is formed, being using the CAN
>protocol, Ethernet or Bluetooth.
>
>I think NEMO will be involved when the components within a car network
>need to talk to (A) another component in the another car, or (B) some
>other nodes in the global internet (possibly using other cars as relay
>to the base station).
>
>>From the route optimization standpoint, I guess for (A), you need some
>form intra-nested NEMO optimization.  It would be, I imagine,
>unacceptable to go through the nested tunnels if the communications
>involves accident prevention signalling, where any extra delay would be
>fatal.
>
>For (B), I suspect you need a form of nested tunnel optimization, or
>maybe a way to flatten the NEMO.  Would a global HA-HA solution be of
>any help here?
>
>/rgds
>/cwng
>
><much older mails snipped>

---

From: "Roberto Baldessari" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:27:39 +0200

Hi all,

I try to summarize answers in one mail.
Please see comments inline.

> 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:

Thanks Pascal.
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?

- 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

> >Specifically why NEMO-BS (i.e. RFC3963) does not meet the 

NEMO BS, being essentially derived from Mobile IP, is an
infrastructure-based mobility protocol. In intervehicle communications,
the infrastructure access via 802.11 will be rather limited (i.e. urban
areas). It is still not clear whether vehicles will be equipped with
additional interfaces (Wifi, 3+ G etc.). At the moment, and also because
car companies have concerns about costs, we focus on 802.11, which is
the basis of the system for road safety.

Considering that, what Intervehicle Communication would like to have is:
- global mobility when the infrastructure is available (and NEMO BS
offers already that)
- "RO with infrastructure"
- exchanging packets directly from a vehicle network to another one when
the Infrastructure is not available, or, in other words, "RO without
infrastructure". But still assuming, as I said before, that the two MRs
are "logically" on the same link.

> >protocol, Ethernet or Bluetooth.

We are not considering how the packets are routed inside the mobile
network.
We don't think that adhoc mode inside the car will be used. This
simplifies a bit the scenario.

> >maybe a way to flatten the NEMO.  Would a global HA-HA 

For (B), as we assume that there is already a routing protocol that
takes care of routing the packets from the vehicle to the infrastructure
point of attachment, we have not considered this kind of solution.
Anyway, global HA-HA is interesting and introduces a Mobile IP Proxy in
the Infrastructure. 
We have been working on a slightly different concept with the same name:
essentially running a MIP Proxy in the MR. But there are Ipsec security
issues in this approach that discourage us.

Roberto