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

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:00:53 +0200

Agreeing with Chan-Wah here :)

I think that the key is that there should be some mutual benefit between
the RO and the NEMO techniques,  *as opposed to* have yet another
addition of routing protocols, each handling some sort of route (default
for NEMO basic MR over tunnel to HA, host routes for some MANET, MNP
prefix routes for MR_to_MR, etc...) and communicate through the routing
table, based on manual policies.

Let me give you 2 examples that I know well:
- Reverse routing header. 

It's a simple, classical source route techniques, and that much is
totally non-NEMO. But there is a clear mutual benefit with NEMO: RRH is
stored in the Binding cache and forwarded/kept alive with the BU flow.
In turn, it saves multiple encaps for NEMO and allow as privacy and
innocuousness.

- Tree discovery/bubbles. 

BTW I just submitted the update, 
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-tree-discovery-02.txt 

Tree discovery allows things (like mobiles routers) to form trees that
optimize some metrics, for instance being rooted at the nearest access
to the infrastructure for the purposes of NEMO basic. You might say it's
yet another spanning tree, for things moving around. The tree is a
logical loopless graph -the simplest form of Directed Acyclic Graph-. 

Bubbles paints that graph with prefixes and there you go, you have a
simple LORA MANET for inside nested NEMO RO, routing over the tree. As
you see, that MANET would work without NEMO, but it is optimized for
NEMO since it initially focuses on the default route. And TD enables
NEMO routers to select the best attachment MR in a nested cloud,
avoiding loops, while bubbles enable the compression of the RRH...

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Chan-Wah Ng
>Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 9:44 AM
>To: Patrick Lam
>Cc: IETF NEMO WG
>Subject: Re: [nemo] Does a new NEMO RO solution have to be based on
MIPv6?
>
>Hello Patrick,
>
>On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 00:19 -0700, Patrick Lam wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
>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