Subject: [nemo] RE: [IETF - Nemo] Personal Mobile Router: Next Step?

From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:29:26 -0800

Hi Jean-Michel,

if there is more interest, I can write something
up in the form of requirements. I was hoping more
people would have gone to the mike and said 
something. the only person who went to the mike
was Hesham who asked a "not so relevant" question. :)

Vijay 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Michel Combes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:05 AM
> To: Vijay Devarapalli
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [IETF - Nemo] Personal Mobile Router: Next Step?
> 
> Hi Vijay,
> 
> Further to your (too) short presentation in the Nemo session at San
> Diego, I would like to know what is your goal regarding the Personal
> Mobile Router. Do you expect to submit a draft in the Nemo WG on the
> requirements for such a use case?
> 
> Thanks for the information.
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> JMC.
>

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. \(GRC-RCN0\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:26:22 -0600

Vijay and Jen-Micheal:

I would think some of the major router companies would be interested in
Personal Mobile Routers with regard to first responders and military.
Or, perhaps they are thinking manet will fit there needs (nemos are
"relatively" easy  to secure if route optimization is not an issue.   

I've looked at the problem for highway patrol and other first responders
a while ago and there appears to be a need.   For first responders -
particularly police and other law enforcement officials, security is an
issue.  Nemo requires infrastructure which may not exist in military
applications but either exists or is relatively easy to create for first
responders.

 "Ohio State Highway Patrol Secure Mobile Networking Demonstration - A
Technical Overview of the Network and Data Flow" Columbus, Ohio November
6, 2003. (Powerpoint) file size 3,795,768 bytes
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic/papers_presentations/2003/OSHP.ppt

I hope this helps.  

Will

******************************
William D. Ivancic
Phone 216-433-3494
Fax 216-433-8705
Lab 216-433-2620
Mobile 440-503-4892
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic 

> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:29 AM
> To: Jean-Michel Combes
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [nemo] RE: [IETF - Nemo] Personal Mobile Router: Next Step?
> 
> Hi Jean-Michel,
> 
> if there is more interest, I can write something up in the 
> form of requirements. I was hoping more people would have 
> gone to the mike and said something. the only person who went 
> to the mike was Hesham who asked a "not so relevant" question. :)
> 
> Vijay 
>

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:54:33 -0800

> was Hesham who asked a "not so relevant" question. :)

I thought the requirements are mostly specific to hardware,
building a device with low power consumption, low form factor
..etc. Other requirements related to control message optimization
..etc. apply to a mobile node such as a handset as well. Talking
to Will, he thought the same. Interesting to see, if this device
adds any NEMO protocol specific requirements. BTW, we do have such
a prototype device running NEMO.

Regards
Sri

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:05:35 -0800

hello,

a clarification. I was trying to show another use
case for NEMO route optimization where the
requirements would be different from automobile or
the aviation industry requirements.

basic NEMO will work very well for this use case.
nothing more needs to be specified.

Vijay

Sri Gundavelli wrote:
>> people would have gone to the mike and said something. the only person 
>> who went to the mike
>>> From: Jean-Michel Combes [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: 
>>> Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:05 AM
>>> To: Vijay Devarapalli

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:18:13 -0800 (PST)

> the aviation industry requirements.

Ok. I understand now. I should have checked your preso.
I will take a look. Thanks

Sri

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:33:33 +0800

Hello Vijay, Sri, and all,

> nothing more needs to be specified.

I would agree with Vijay here.  Thus far the NEMO WG has been focusing
on big industry needs such as aviation and automobile industries.  While
requirements from these obvious NEMO dpeloyements are definitely the
main driving force here, one should not disregard the mass consumer
electronics scenario.  Vijay's proposal of Personal Mobile Routers type
of scenario is definitely not to neglected.

Scenarios leading to need for route optimization includes multimedia
streaming between peers (such as video-telephony), content sharing, etc.
As presented, such communications is typically localized, thus mkaing
route optimization highly desirable.  

To take this one step further, such "personal" NEMO to a non-personal
flavour, such as NEMO for business/entreprise, local law enforcement,
etc.

/rgds
/cwng

-- 
Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Panasonic Singapore Labs

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:51:00 +0900

Hi Vijay

Interesting, but I want you to make clarification a bit more.

When you said route optimization, what level of optimization is  
required?

Do you consider like MR-MR direct connection, two HA bypass?
I believe you image cellular egress interface and not WiFi.
So, your problem must be not here.

In general, when two MRs talks, two HAs are involved.
However, if two MRs are in the same operator, one HA can be skipped  
(i.e. same HA for two MRs).
In addition, if the egress is cellular, the HA should be located in  
the cellular network.
The latency must be not so big (my guess).

I want to know where you want to optimize the path between two  
personal MRs?!

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:09:29 +0100

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Hi Jean-Michel,
> 
> if there is more interest, I can write something up in the form of 
> requirements. I was hoping more people would have gone to the mike 
> and said something.[...]

The Presonal Mobile Router scenario is relevant.  PAN models use it.
A 2003 announcement [companyname] showed Personal Mobile Gateway with
the form factor of a handset and delivering IP to a Bluetooth PAN
behind it.

Some operators of cell phones prohibit two phones talk to each other
via Bluetooth or WiFi and make them prefer the cell network.  Others
encourage it.  This can be called 'RO' and how some operators want it
and others not.

I think 3G-something has NEMOv6 spec for Mobile Routers - would
someone confirm.

The great thing of making two handset MR talk to each directly
(instead of via cell network) is the gain in bandwidth: both bluetooth
and wifi have higher bandwidth than 3G cells.  So an RO solution would
help here a lot, independently of how far the HAs are.

We too have a prototype of this PAN controlled by a Mobile Router,
with PDAs in the PAN.

Alex

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:46:39 +0800

Hello all,

> So, your problem must be not here.
Multi-modal cellphones are already in the market for years now.  So I
suspect, like what Alex mentioned, when MR-MR RO is used, I would
imagine them to use other interfaces.

> I want to know where you want to optimize the path between two  

It is actually to the operator's benefit for two MR to talk directly to
each other without using HAs.  It frees up the HA resources for other
use.  As Alex mentioned in his response, some operators encourage it,
some don't.  I suspect the main reason for operators that don't  is due
to billing complications -- how are you going to charge the 2 MR for air
time if they have not actually use the cellular air time?

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:40:38 +0900

Hi Alex,

why some operators hesitate to open the way to talk?

If this is accounting issue, control signals can be always sent over  
cell network
and data traffic is sent directly between phones.
Then, operators may agree on supporting this RO?! (if so, great)

regards,
ryuji

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:43:11 +0900

Hi

> imagine them to use other interfaces.

OK. The problem is a bit similar to the nested case, though the  
scenario is different.

> time if they have not actually use the cellular air time?

As I said in the previous mail, if HA knows who talk directly by  
receiving signaling,
they may have chance to charge...

ryuji

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:00:11 +0800

Hello Alex, Ryuji,

> Then, operators may agree on supporting this RO?! (if so, great)

Possible, but they cannot know the actual duration or number of bytes
transferred, so either they charge a one time flat fee or they install
software on subscriber's phone to report such accounting info.

One-time flat fee is fair enough, since their network resources is not
actually used.  However, operators may do their finiancial research and
deem that it is not optimal profit wise to allow services.

The second option is unlikely, unless the operator is so powerful (like
in a particular Asian country ;)) that it can dictate the specifications
on phone vendors.  Plus it isn't very fair, since operator's network
resources are not actually used (signalling exlcuded, which can be
accounted and charged anyway).

/rgds
/cwng