Last Modified: 2004-07-23
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.
Done | Submit terminology and requirements documents (for Basic support). | |
Done | Submit NEMO Basic Support to IESG | |
Done | Submit WG draft -00 on Threat Analysis and Security Requirements for NEMO. | |
Done | Submit WG draft -00 on Multihoming Problem Statement | |
Done | Submit WG draft -00 on NEMO Basic Support Usages | |
Apr 04 | Submit Terminology as Informational to IESG | |
Apr 04 | Submit Goals and Requirements as Informational to IESG | |
Apr 04 | Submit WG draft -00 on Prefix Delegation for NEMO | |
May 04 | Submit WG draft -00 on MIB for NEMO Basic Support | |
Jun 04 | Submit WG draft -00 on Analysis of the Solution Space for Route Optimization | |
Aug 04 | Shut down or recharter the WG to solve route optimization |
NEMO Meeting minutes for IETF60
(included in text agenda) by Behcet Sarikaya ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------< NEMO Agenda - IETF 60, San Diego - August 2, 2004 17:30-19:30 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------< o Introduction and Agenda Bashing .................................................... 5 min [Chairmen: Thierry Ernst, T.J. Kniveton] o NEMO working group status and milestones; WG documents ............................. 5 min Working Group charter and direction ................................................ 5 min [Chairmen] o NEMO Basic Support Specification Status ............................................ 5 min http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support-03.txt [Vijay Devarapalli] Vijay presented nemo basic support spec. approved by IESG. Now in RFC Editor queue. Issues: tunnel interface flapping. HA should not tear down bi-directional tunnel everytime instead tunnel endpoints should be updated with MR current care-of address. OSPF area issue: entire home domain should not be configured as a single area. The home network should be configured as a separate area. MR bidirectional tunnels interface should be separate area. Several issues clarified, running a routing protocol between HA and MR. Value of R flag in subsequent BUs, should not change. TJ: changes already made before RFC editor involvement Vijay yes. o Results of Last Call for Terminology and Requirements ............................. 15 min http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-01.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-02.txt [Thierry Ernst] - Results of WG last call, what need to be done on the current doc - is section 5 "NEMO Basic Support One-liner Requirements" still meaningful? Thierry: new version is -02. Comments: some terminology moved to Seamoby document. Not repeat these definitions. Vijay: copy paste them so that each document is self consistent. Marcelo’s comments (Thierry showed a list of 8) have been carried out in the new version. Splitting references into normative/ nonnormative to be done. NEMO-prefix vs MNP, chair asked WG opinion, TJ argued for NEMO-prefix. Root-MR vs TLMR? Pascal: root-MR is OK but TLMR should be kept in the document. Carried. Vijay comments: mostly done. What to do with home-network-models draft terms? They are to be included in the terminology document but then what to do with home-network-models draft? Multihoming section. Scenario descriptions similar concerns here. Thierry asked if English should be brushed up, if yes, any volunteers? Comments on the Mailing list. One-liner requirements make sense? Comments were solicited. o NEMO Home Network Models .......................................................... 10 min http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-home-network-models-00.txt [Vijay Devarapalli/Ryuji Wakikawa] Pascal: definition of home network mip6 and nemo different. Nemo home link can be virtual. Mailing list issues: more explanations. Maybe ready for last call. TJ: adding more explanations. Rationale should be explained. - SNMP and NEMO MIB [] (5 minutes) TJ: MIPv6 MIB people will work on nemo MIB. - Prefix Delegation for Mobile Networks [Ralph Droms?] (5 minutes) Ralph made a draft. o Analysis of Multihoming in NEMO ................................................... 10 min http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-multihoming-generic-goals-and-benefits-00.txt [Chan-Wah Ng] - document status - does doc fit the WG expectations - consider which issues are important to solve Chan-Wah: multihoming issues draft combined 3 individual drafts. Issues: validity of prefix registered in different HAs in different domains. Next Chan-Wah presented problems/ issues listed in the draft. Multiple HAs and MRs. Nested mobile networks, loop avoidance with multiple MRs. Thierry: comments are needed on these issues. Mailing list. o Multihoming Testing Reports ....................................................... 10 min [EunKyoung Paik] o Analysis of Solution Space for Route Optimization and Multihoming Introduction [TJ Kniveton] ......................................................... 5 min Route aggregation draft: Pascal presented the characteristics of the Fringe. - Tree Discovery [Pascal Thubert] .................................................. 5 min http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-tree-discovery-00.txt Pascal presented issues from ML. security/ serviceability. Policies for group mobility. Questions: is it related to wireless links or wired? How is it related to manet? Manet is host route, so once tree is discovered, it can be populated with prefixes and manet can be used. Pascal asked if it is in the WG charter. - RO Analysis [Jongkeun Na] ........................................................ 5 min http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-na-nemo-gen-ro-model-00.txt - Split Networks [Masayuki Kumazawa] ............................................... 5 min http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kumazawa-nemo-tbdnd-00.txt - Dynamic Inter Home Agent Protocol [Benjamin Koh Tien-Ming] ....................... 5 min http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-koh-dihap-00.txt - Evaluating Multiple Mobile Routers and Multiple Prefixes in NEMO Basic Support ... 5 min [Eun Kyoung and Romain Kuntz] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kuntz-nemo-multihoming-test-00.txt Paik: tests on netbsd 1.6.1. tested cases 2MRs, 1HA, 1 prefix and 2MRs, 1HA and 2 prefix. Issues: unreachability when one MR fails. Routing loop when failed MR binding time expires and asymmetric communication, incoming traffic by MR 1 outgouing traffic by MR2. Paik presented conclusions from tests on mobile network reachability. www.nautilus6.org - [Nobuo OGASHIWA] ................................................................. 5 min http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nagami-mip6-nemo-multihome-fixed-network-01.txt multihoming architecture for small scale fixed network. MR1 & MR2 have 2 egress interfaces connected to ISP1 and ISP2. Next step: merge into scenario draft, or keep it as separate draft? Thierry: have you conducted the experiments? Answer is yes. Any issues on multihoming have been detected? Yes, some issues: multiple care-of addresses and HA redundancy. Thierry: these issues detected should be documented. HAHA Protocol Ryuji: HA reliability. Haha at L3, MIP nemo rely on L2. L3 brings high scalability Global distribution. Usage scenarios, HAs multiple in several networks, during a flight from France to San Francisco. Maybe in different countries. Questions: nemo WG work on these two issues? HA reliability, software hardware based? Next global distribution. Thierry: MIP6 WG status. Ryuji: only HA reliability. Discussion on multiple prefix by HAs Marcelo and Pascal. TJ asked it to take to ML. Ken Nagami: these two issues are important commercially. TJ. There is interest on global distribution issue. Should we work on it in nemo? It is not on charter. Route optimization presentations. Watafumi. Current RO proposals. Taxanomy draft. CN behind nested nemo scenario not considered. 3 Cases. RO in nested nemo in nemo charter? Or use adhoc routing approaches. Na: presented his generic RO model draft. Kumazawa: draft on multihoming. Chan-Wah: Dynamic inter HA protocol draft (DIHAP). Benefits: HA redundancy and HA load balancing. TJ: security between HAs? How come HA2 is intercepting HA1’s packets, are they sharing keys? How does H2 know it is closer to MN1? o Open Mic ........................................................................... 5 min o Conclusion and next steps.......................................................... 15 min [Chairmen] TJ on current milestones. |