Subject: [nemo] Does a new NEMO RO solution have to be based on MIPv6?

From: Patrick Lam <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:19:52 -0700 (PDT)

Dear all,

I am a research student, and am looking into the NEMO
RO area as my research topic right now.  I am just
wondering if a new NEMO solution have to be based on
MIPv6?  We are currently evaluating a possible RO
solution that, although backward compatible, is not
based on the MIPv6 idea.  Is that acceptable?

Also, I have not found of seen any rigorous
mathematical analysis of NEMO issues yet.  Can someone
give a pointer to things like that if any is
avaliable?

Thanks very much in advance.

Regards,

Patrick

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:44:27 +0800

Hello Patrick,

> based on the MIPv6 idea.  Is that acceptable?

Speaking entirely for myself, there is no rule saying "RO must be based
on MIPv6".  So, yes, you can have an entirely different way of achieving
RO without basing on MIPv6.

Having said that, it is, however, desirable to keep the impact of a new
solution minimal, e.g. introducing least amount new functionalities to
existing nodes, esp CN.

And by the way, I am interested to know more about the solution you are
evaluating.  Could you disclose more details?  The WG is currently
working on the RO solution space draft, so if you have a significantly
different approach, I would like to hear it and document it.  

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Patrick Lam <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 01:46:42 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Chan-Wah,

Thanks for the reply.  I am asking this question
because the "wording" used in quite a few drafts
(e.g., Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements
by Ernst) kind of mandates the usage of MIPv6
framework on NEMO.  I am just not sure whether it has
already been an understanding among the comunity that
MIPv6 framework must be followed.

Thanks for your suggestions too.  Our solution is
actually not putting any new requirements on the CNs. 
It's not a big secret that I cannot disclose, but it
is just still in a very preliminary stage that many
issues are not thought through yet (otherwise I would
not be asking this question just now ... :)).  We will
definitely contribute to the community as soon as we
have more concrete ideas (of what we are doing ...
:)).

Regards,

Patrick

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:32:56 -0700

> MIPv6 framework must be followed.

Hi Patrick,

The reason the wording is like this, is because when we went to solve 
the NEMO problem, we did an analysis and comparison of possible 
solutions, and decided to base the solution on MIPv6. So for the Base 
NEMO Support protocol, it is based on MIPv6, and the accompanying 
drafts/RFCs would reflect that.

Currently, we are looking into the RO problem space, and deciding 
which, if any, of that space the NEMO WG should try and solve. If the 
group recharters to address RO, then we would have more tasks in that 
area.

So there is no requirement, per se, that an RO solution would be based 
on MIPv6. However, it is unusual to make an optimization of a protocol 
by changing the underlying paradigms themselves. So we would all be 
interested to hear more of what you have in mind.

-TJ