Last Modified: 2003-10-20
A mobile network is assumed to be a leaf network, i.e. it will not carry transit traffic. However,it could be multihomed, either with a single MR that has multiple attachments to the internet, or by using multiple MRs that attach the mobile network to the Internet.
Initially,the WG will assume that none of the nodes behind the MR will be aware of the network's mobility, thus the network's movement needs to be completely transparent to the nodes inside the mobile network. This assumption will be made to accomodate nodes inside the network that are not generally aware of mobility.
A basic approach for network mobility support is for each Mobile Router to have a Home Agent, and use bidirectional tunneling between the MR and HA to preserve session continuity while the MR moves. The MR will acquire a Care-of-address from its attachment point much like what is done for Mobile Nodes using Mobile IP. This approach allows nesting of mobile networks, since each MR will appear to its attachment point as a single node.
The WG will take a stepwise approach by standardizing some basic support mechanisms based on the bidirectional tunneling approach, and at the same time study the possible approaches and issues with providing more optimal routing than can be had with (potentially nested) tunneling. However, the WG is not chartered to actually standardize a solution to such route optimization for mobile networks at this point in time.
The WG will work on:
- A threat analysis and security solution for the basic problem (tunneling between HA and MR)
- A solution to the basic problem for both IPv4 and IPv6. The solution will allow all nodes in the mobile network to be reachable via permanent IP addresses, as well as maintain ongoing sessions as the MR changes its point of attachment within the topology. This will be done by maintaining a bidirectional tunnel between the MR and its Home Agent. The WG will investigate reusing the existing Mobile IPv6 mechanisms for the tunnel management, or extend it if deemed necessary.
- An informational document which specifies a detailed problem statement for route optimization and looks at various approaches to solving this problem. This document will look into the issues and tradeoffs involved in making the network's movement visible to some nodes, by optionally making them "NEMO aware". The interaction between route optimization and IP routing will also be described in this document. Furthermore, security considerations for the various approaches will also be considered.
The WG will:
- Ensure that solutions will scale and function for the different mobile network configurations, without requiring changes to Correspondent Nodes in the Internet. All solutions will aim at preserving route aggregation within the Internet and will satisfy an acceptable level of security (a thorough survey of new threats and an analysis of their severity will be conducted)
- Ensure that various mechanisms defined within other IETF WGs will be useful for mobile networks. To achieve this, the NEMO WG will interact with other WGs when needed, and may place requirements on the protocols developed by those WGs.
The WG will not:
- consider routing issues inside the mobile network. Existing routing protocols (including MANET protocols) can be used to solve these problems.
| Mar 03 | Submit terminology and requirements documents (for Basic support). | |
| May 03 | Submit Threat analysis and security requirements for NEMO. | |
| Aug 03 | Submit solution for basic support to IESG. | |
| Nov 03 | Submit MIB for Basic support to the IESG. | |
| Mar 04 | Submit the analysis of the solution space for route optimization. | |
| Jun 04 | Shut down or recharter the WG to solve the route optimization. |
Nemo Minutes IETF58 November 12,2003 15:30 – 17:30 (Scribe – Will Ivancic) *** slides available at http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/ietf58/slides/ *** Note, some presentation slides were not available at this site during the meeting. However, all presentation slides will be available at the above URL within a week of ietf58 if not sooner. Thierry Ernst (TE) introduced current drafts and relevant work. Indicated need to work on "nemo" threat analysis. Currently have some individual submissions. Open Mic - James Kempf (JK) Questions and concerns on submitting basic support without separate treat analysis. Concerns were alleviated as chairs indicated the is some information in "basic support" with threat analysis document to follow soon. Chairs requested help on MIB support which was then volunteered from the floor. TE - introduced current drafts and relevant work. TE - introduced current drafts and relevant work. IPR Issues: ========== TJ Kniveton (TJ) - introduced discussion of IPR issues. JK - expained "nondiscriminatory" TJ - Discussed patents. Cisco's patent is relative their ipv4 implementation. TJ - Nokia will not enforce patent to those who implement as open source. TJ - Complete IPR on list and come to solution very soon. Basic draft would be difficult to modify without infringing on IPR. Greg Daley indicated there may be a problem with implementation in Linux due to IPR. Particularly as the implementers are not lawyers. TJ - IPR Nokia and Cisco have never asserted a claim in the past for those implementing IETF standards except if claims where made against Cisco/Nokia. However, this was in the past and is not guaranteed. TJ polled room to continue work ~ 30 for and 2 against. Consensus is to continue. “Basic” Document =============== Vijay Devarapalli (VD) presented status of "basic document" VD 19 issues, 12 accepted 4 rejected. VD Open issues relative to Legacy MIPv6 Home Agents(see slides) VD reviewed 3 open issues 15/16, 17, 19 VD plans for next issue is to update and close the issues. “Threat Analysis” Document ======================= Souhwan Jung (SJ) discussed threat analysis specific to nemo basic. See charts for details. SJ NMM spoof bu of MR withoug ingress filtering at MR. Ingress filtering at MR can protect this attack. Greg Daley suggested possible use of separate SA for signalling and general traffic could solve this problem. SJ NMM spoofs BU of MR with ingress filtering at MR Open Mic – This threat appears to be over arching forwarding problem, but should be noted in nemo threat analysis. SJ Attack using HA as a stepping stone. SJ - next step update document to focus only on 'basic" implementation. “Basic Support Usages” ======================= Pascal Thubert (PT) presented nemo “Basic Support Usage” draft. Open Mic - Question regarding security associations regarding multiple home agents. Issues may arise with multiple HA's and shared keys. Open Mic - most important things to develop in documents are those that are most likely deployed as these are what the users and developers will be looking at initially. Open Mic - question on possibly being registered on two HAs at once. This will be covered in HAHA discussion. TJ polled room regarding "usage" document. Consensus is to have this as working document, but may need more work prior to becoming a "nemo" document. Inter Home Agents Protocol ===================== Ryuji Wakikawa (RW) presented work on HAHA document. RW Usage: load balancing, preferred HA, geographically distributed HA, psuedo route optimization. [ Open Mic - Draft does not explain how to synchronize bindings between HAs. Binding synchronization needs work. TJ - Interesting topics, may need more than one draft, more work regarding switching bidirectional tunnels. Many open questions. Multihoming Draft ============== Chan-Wan Ng (CN) introduced multihoming draft and Eun Kyoung (EK) presented portions of the draft. TE – suggested various multihoming documents to be merged. Polled room. Consensus is to merge document and move to working group document. Need to get input from working group as to how to develop this to address "nemo" specific issues. Test Results from Vehicular Networks ============================= Hon-Yon Lach (HL) presented draft-lach-nemo-experiments-overdrive-01.txt General Comments - slides on the Web at the time of the nemo WG meeting appeared to have error in them preventing document form opening. Document will be reloaded to Web and checked to ensure usability. Closing Remarks ============== TE – provided closing statement emphasizing schedule and deliverables. Need basic draft and treat analysis by January as well as goals and requirements and terminology documents. |