Subject: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:16:27 +0300

Hi,

On a bit of a tangent... I have been studying different ways of dealing 
with mobility of 6LoWPAN nodes and networks. Extended LoWPANs provide 
some mobility support for micro-mobility, which is good. Properly 
designed applications can also deal with IP addresses changing. But what 
if you would want to have a stable IP address for a 6LoWPAN node or a 
stable prefix for a whole LoWPAN?

MIPv6 have several problems to be used directly by LoWPAN nodes, e.g.:
- IP-in-IP encapsulation with the home agent
- Security for binding management messages
- Potentially large amounts of binding messages
Is anyone aware of work on MIPv6 proxy mechanisms which would allow e.g. 
an Edge Router to proxy MIPv6 operations on behalf of a LoWPAN node? 
Maybe revive the Foreign Agent for IPv6? ;-)

NEMO is much more clearly applicable to 6LoWPAN network mobility. The 
basic NEMO protocol is a perfect match, allowing an Edge Router or other 
router in the visited network to act as a Mobile Router and perform 
MIPv6 on behalf of the network. Thus maintaining constant prefixes for 
all LoWPANs under the router. I don't see route optimization to be 
necessary for NEMO used with 6LoWPAN, the performance of traffic going 
through the home agent should be fine.

Thoughts?

- Zach

-- 
http://www.sensinode.com
http://zachshelby.org - My blog “On the Internet of Things”
Mobile: +358 40 7796297

Zach Shelby
Head of Research
Sensinode Ltd.
Kidekuja 2
88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND

This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain 
legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without 
producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.

---

From: "Julien Abeille (jabeille)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:21:49 +0200

Hi Zach,

The issue with NEMO is that if nodes move from one router to another
(meaning the routers doing the nemo signaling), their address change.
NEMO is made to handle mobility of the whole network behind the router,
not individual nodes moving from this network to another.

What you are probably looking for is Proxy Mobile IPv6
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5213.txt) and in general the work behing
done by the netlmm working group
(http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/netlmm-charter.html) and the netext
working group (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/netext-charter.html).

Best,
Julien

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Zach Shelby
Sent: lundi 25 mai 2009 15:16
To: 6lowpan
Subject: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN

Hi,

MIPv6 have several problems to be used directly by LoWPAN nodes, e.g.:
- IP-in-IP encapsulation with the home agent
- Security for binding management messages
- Potentially large amounts of binding messages Is anyone aware of work
on MIPv6 proxy mechanisms which would allow e.g. 
an Edge Router to proxy MIPv6 operations on behalf of a LoWPAN node? 
Maybe revive the Foreign Agent for IPv6? ;-)

Thoughts?

- Zach

--
http://www.sensinode.com
http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
Mobile: +358 40 7796297

Zach Shelby
Head of Research
Sensinode Ltd.
Kidekuja 2
88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND

This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain
legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without
producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

---

From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 23:41:08 +0900

Hi, all.

NEMO scenarios within PMIPv6 domain have been presented in the following
document.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-netlmm-nemo-scenarios-01

Hope you find useful scenarios for 6LowPAN.

Cheers.

-- 
Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University.
Jong-Hyouk Lee.

#email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
#webpage: http://hurryon.googlepages.com/

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 13:05:05 +0200

Hi Zach,

Right, a good conceptual place to put a Mobile IPv6-based NEMO Mobile
Router is the Edge Router.  However, the Edge Router (Border Router?)
isn't supposed to move.

There are other concepts in the NEMO-MANET interaction space that could
be interesting for LoWPAN ER.  For example, if each ER informed the
other ER about the prefix it holds on its sensor link, then the other
ERs could reach these sensors.  This was proposed for example for
egress-egress interactions of Mobile Routers, using ICMP RA.  It could
probably be OSPF instead.

Also, probably, it could make sense to have one sensor-node MR to move
from under one ER (move together with some of its smaller sensornode
LFNs) to another ER, and consider the old ER to be its Home Agent, and
execute Mobile IPv6-based NEMO protocol extensions.  In this sense, the
ER wouldn't be an IPv6-based FA, but a HA.

About PMIPv6: obviously PMIPv6 would apply in a sense, but first is ER
supposed to be the PMIPv6 MAG or the PMIPv6 LMA?

(PMIPv6 design works in a way as NEMO does, in that PMIPv6 MAG updates a
prefix on PMIPv6 LMA, just as NEMO MR updates a prefix on NEMO HA).

Alex

Zach Shelby a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> On a bit of a tangent... I have been studying different ways of 
> dealing with mobility of 6LoWPAN nodes and networks. Extended LoWPANs
>  provide some mobility support for micro-mobility, which is good. 
> Properly designed applications can also deal with IP addresses 
> changing. But what if you would want to have a stable IP address for 
> a 6LoWPAN node or a stable prefix for a whole LoWPAN?
> 
> MIPv6 have several problems to be used directly by LoWPAN nodes, 
> e.g.: - IP-in-IP encapsulation with the home agent - Security for 
> binding management messages - Potentially large amounts of binding 
> messages Is anyone aware of work on MIPv6 proxy mechanisms which 
> would allow e.g. an Edge Router to proxy MIPv6 operations on behalf 
> of a LoWPAN node? Maybe revive the Foreign Agent for IPv6? ;-)
> 
>  basic NEMO protocol is a perfect match, allowing an Edge Router or 
> other router in the visited network to act as a Mobile Router and 
> perform MIPv6 on behalf of the network. Thus maintaining constant 
> prefixes for all LoWPANs under the router. I don't see route 
> optimization to be necessary for NEMO used with 6LoWPAN, the 
> performance of traffic going through the home agent should be fine.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> - Zach
>

---

From: "Julien Abeille (jabeille)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:23:17 +0200

Hi all,

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: mardi 26 mai 2009 13:05
To: Zach Shelby
Cc: 6lowpan
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN

Hi Zach,

Right, a good conceptual place to put a Mobile IPv6-based NEMO Mobile Router is the Edge Router.  However, the Edge Router (Border Router?) isn't supposed to move.

There are other concepts in the NEMO-MANET interaction space that could be interesting for LoWPAN ER.  For example, if each ER informed the other ER about the prefix it holds on its sensor link, then the other ERs could reach these sensors.  This was proposed for example for egress-egress interactions of Mobile Routers, using ICMP RA.  It could probably be OSPF instead.

Also, probably, it could make sense to have one sensor-node MR to move from under one ER (move together with some of its smaller sensornode
LFNs) to another ER, and consider the old ER to be its Home Agent, and execute Mobile IPv6-based NEMO protocol extensions.  In this sense, the ER wouldn't be an IPv6-based FA, but a HA.

About PMIPv6: obviously PMIPv6 would apply in a sense, but first is ER supposed to be the PMIPv6 MAG or the PMIPv6 LMA?
[Julien] In my opinion ER would be a MAG. As Pascal mentionned, this works pretty well in a mesh under scenario, not route over. I would think MIPv6 applies in the route over case. I do not see yet what NEMO would bring.

(PMIPv6 design works in a way as NEMO does, in that PMIPv6 MAG updates a prefix on PMIPv6 LMA, just as NEMO MR updates a prefix on NEMO HA).
[Julien] I agree, but in NEMO by default the MR moves, and the nodes on the ingress interface don't. In PMIPv6 the MAG does not move, and the nodes on the ingress do.

Best,
Julien

Alex

Zach Shelby a écrit :
> changing. But what if you would want to have a stable IP address for a 
> 6LoWPAN node or a stable prefix for a whole LoWPAN?
> 
> messages Is anyone aware of work on MIPv6 proxy mechanisms which would 
> allow e.g. an Edge Router to proxy MIPv6 operations on behalf of a 
> LoWPAN node? Maybe revive the Foreign Agent for IPv6? ;-)
>

---

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:23:08 +0200

Hi,

Thanks for all the pointers. I'll need some time think and come back to 
this much later. After hanging out with Pascal today in Sophia we 
actually have a solution for this - after HC and ND are through first.

> [Julien] In my opinion ER would be a MAG. As Pascal mentionned, this works pretty well in a mesh under scenario, not route over. I would think MIPv6 applies in the route over case. I do not see yet…

Agreed. After looking into the dirty details of PMIPv6 - it is really 
not suitable for 6lowpan as is, espcially for route over.

> [Julien] I agree, but in NEMO by default the MR moves, and the nodes on the ingress interface don't. In PMIPv6 the MAG does not move, and the nodes on the ingress do.

Exactly - they are for two different purposes clearly. Edge routers 
definitely can move, and whole LoWPANs of course, look at body sensor 
networks for example. Here NEMO is perfect.

Pascal pointed out the work on Proxy Home Agents and GlobalHaHa, which 
may really make MIPv6 suitable for LoWPAN nodes. This is something to 
consider in the future at least - seems to have the best potential for 
node mobility.

Anyways - we're not chartered for this now - but wink, wink - when 
rechartering some day this is an interesting topic.

Zach Shelby
Head of Research
Sensinode Ltd.
Kidekuja 2
88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND