Subject: WG Review: Recharter of Network Mobility (nemo)

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:41:29 -0500

A modified charter has been submitted for the Network Mobility (nemo)
working group in the Internet Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made
any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for 
informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]).

+++

Network Mobility (nemo)
========================

Current Status: Active Working Group

Chair(s):
TJ Kniveton <[email-masked]>
Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Director(s):
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Technical Advisor(s):
Steven Bellovin <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nemo/index.html

Description of Working Group:

The NEMO Working Group is concerned with managing the mobility of an
entire network, which changes its point of attachment to the Internet
and thus its reachability in the network topology. The mobile network
includes one or more mobile routers (MRs) which connect the rest of
the mobile network to the global Internet.

For the purposes of this working group, a mobile network is a leaf
network; it does not carry transit traffic. Nonetheless, 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.

For the basic NEMO support case, none of the nodes behind the MR need
be aware of the network's mobility; thus, the network's movement is
completely transparent to the nodes inside the mobile network. This
design consideration was made to accommodate nodes inside the network
that are not generally aware of mobility.

Basic network mobility support is described in RFC 3963. This RFC
contains NEMO Basic Support, which is a protocol based on Mobile IPv6
(RFC 3775, 3776) that enables network mobility in an IPv6 network.

The working group is tasked with continuing to evolve RFC 3963 to
correct errors and address deployment issues. In addition, the group
works in co-operation with the MIP6 WG to design a mechanism to
allow mixed IPv4/IPv6 networks to be used.

At this point, the working group is concerned with solving deployment
issues of NEMO, primarily relating to [email-masked] Wed Feb 21 10:54:36 2007
To: [email-masked]
From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:41:29 -0500
Cc: [email-masked], Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Subject: WG Review: Recharter of Network Mobility (nemo) 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

A modified charter has been submitted for the Network Mobility (nemo)
working group in the Internet Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made
any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for 
informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]).

+++

Network Mobility (nemo)
========================

Current Status: Active Working Group

Chair(s):
TJ Kniveton <[email-masked]>
Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Director(s):
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Technical Advisor(s):
Steven Bellovin <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nemo/index.html

Description of Working Group:

The NEMO Working Group is concerned with managing the mobility of an
entire network, which changes its point of attachment to the Internet
and thus its reachability in the network topology. The mobile network
includes one or more mobile routers (MRs) which connect the rest of
the mobile network to the global Internet.

For the purposes of this working group, a mobile network is a leaf
network; it does not carry transit traffic. Nonetheless, 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.

For the basic NEMO support case, none of the nodes behind the MR need
be aware of the network's mobility; thus, the network's movement is
completely transparent to the nodes inside the mobile network. This
design consideration was made to accommodate nodes inside the network
that are not generally aware of mobility.

Basic network mobility support is described in RFC 3963. This RFC
contains NEMO Basic Support, which is a protocol based on Mobile IPv6
(RFC 3775, 3776) that enables network mobility in an IPv6 network.

The working group is tasked with continuing to evolve RFC 3963 to
correct errors and address deployment issues. In addition, the group
works in co-operation with the MIP6 WG to design a mechanism to
allow mixed IPv4/IPv6 networks to be used.

At this point, the working group is concerned with solving deployment
issues of NEMO, primarily relating to the identified needs of the
automotive and aviation communities. The group will gather requirements
from those builders and users, and then solve the route optimization
issues necessary for optimized deployments.

Among the deployments that have issues which may be solved by NEMO
Route Optimization feature(s), we have identified three cases that
have a likelihood of requirements gathering and an Optimization
solution. Those comprise the Automotive case, the Aviation case, and
the Personal Mobile Router (consumer electronics) case. The group will
explore these options to gather requirements and, if those
requirements match the capability of a NEMO RO solution space, proceed
with solving the open issues.

The WG will:

- Finish working group documents that are currently in process, and
submit for RFC. This includes prefix delegation protocol mechanisms,
a multihoming problem statement, and a MIB for NEMO Basic Support.

- Gather requirements for NEMO Route Optimization in deployment
scenarios:

(1) Automotive industry who are deploying NEMO for in-car
communication, entertainment, and data gathering, possible
control systems use, and communication to roadside devices.

(2) Airline and spacecraft community, who are deploying NEMO for
control systems, as well as Internet connectivity and
entertainment systems.

(3) Personal Mobile Routers, which are consumer devices that allow
the user to bring a NEMO network with the user while mobile, and
communicate with peer NEMO networks/MNNs.

After gathering the requirements for these types of deployments, the
working group will evaluate what type of route optimization needs to
be performed (if any), and formulate a solution to those problems.

If no requirements for those scenarios can be collected by the
deadline, it will be assumed that the work is premature, and that
type of deployment will be dropped from the list of use cases
currently addressed by NEMO.

In order to retain focus, the group needs to sequence the
solution work for Personal Mobile Routers and Automotive
industry. I.e., one solution needs to be completed before
another one can be adopted as a WG document.

The group will only consider airline and spacecraft solutions
that combine tunneling solutions for small movements with
either federated tunnel servers or slowly changing end host
prefixes.

The group will only consider personal mobile router solutions
that employ the router's association with an operator in order
to set up a secure optimized route with another router belonging
to the same operator.

The group will only consider automotive industry solutions
that allow MR-attached hosts to directly access the network
where MR has attached to.

The WG will not:

- consider routing issues inside the mobile network. Existing routing
protocols (including MANET protocols) can be used to solve these
problems.

- consider general route optimization, multihoming, or other problems
that are not related to the deployment and maintenance of NEMO
networks.

- consider or rely on the results of general routing architecture,
Internet architecture, or identifier-locator split issues that are
discussed in separate, long term efforts elsewhere in the IETF

- consider solutions that require changes from correspondent
nodes in the general Internet

The working group will endeavor to separate research issues, and refer
them to the IRTF as appropriate.

Goals and Milestones:

Feb 2007 Submit final doc(s) on Prefix Delegation for NEMO
Apr 2007 Submit final doc Multihoming Problem Statement
Apr 2007 Submit final doc on MIB for NEMO Basic Support

May 2007 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for
Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments
May 2007 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for
Automobile and Highway Deployments
May 2007 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization needs for
Personal Mobile Router

Jul 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to aircraft/spacecraft
problem
Jul 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to first remaining problem

Aug 2007 Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for
Aircraft and Spacecraft Deploymentshe identified needs of the
automotive and aviation communities. The group will gather requirements
from those builders and users, and then solve the route optimization
issues necessary for optimized deployments.

Among the deployments that have issues which may be solved by NEMO
Route Optimization feature(s), we have identified three cases that
have a likelihood of requirements gathering and an Optimization
solution. Those comprise the Automotive case, the Aviation case, and
the Personal Mobile Router (consumer electronics) case. The group will
explore these options to gather requirements and, if those
requirements match the capability of a NEMO RO solution space, proceed
with solving the open issues.

The WG will:

- Finish working group documents that are currently in process, and
submit for RFC. This includes prefix delegation protocol mechanisms,
a multihoming problem statement, and a MIB for NEMO Basic Support.

- Gather requirements for NEMO Route Optimization in deployment
scenarios:

(1) Automotive industry who are deploying NEMO for in-car
communication, entertainment, and data gathering, possible
control systems use, and communication to roadside devices.

(2) Airline and spacecraft community, who are deploying NEMO for
control systems, as well as Internet connectivity and
entertainment systems.

(3) Personal Mobile Routers, which are consumer devices that allow
the user to bring a NEMO network with the user while mobile, and
communicate with peer NEMO networks/MNNs.

After gathering the requirements for these types of deployments, the
working group will evaluate what type of route optimization needs to
be performed (if any), and formulate a solution to those problems.

If no requirements for those scenarios can be collected by the
deadline, it will be assumed that the work is premature, and that
type of deployment will be dropped from the list of use cases
currently addressed by NEMO.

In order to retain focus, the group needs to sequence the
solution work for Personal Mobile Routers and Automotive
industry. I.e., one solution needs to be completed before
another one can be adopted as a WG document.

The group will only consider airline and spacecraft solutions
that combine tunneling solutions for small movements with
either federated tunnel servers or slowly changing end host
prefixes.

The group will only consider personal mobile router solutions
that employ the router's association with an operator in order
to set up a secure optimized route with another router belonging
to the same operator.

The group will only consider automotive industry solutions
that allow MR-attached hosts to directly access the network
where MR has attached to.

The WG will not:

- consider routing issues inside the mobile network. Existing routing
protocols (including MANET protocols) can be used to solve these
problems.

- consider general route optimization, multihoming, or other problems
that are not related to the deployment and maintenance of NEMO
networks.

- consider or rely on the results of general routing architecture,
Internet architecture, or identifier-locator split issues that are
discussed in separate, long term efforts elsewhere in the IETF

- consider solutions that require changes from correspondent
nodes in the general Internet

The working group will endeavor to separate research issues, and refer
them to the IRTF as appropriate.

Goals and Milestones:

Feb 2007 Submit final doc(s) on Prefix Delegation for NEMO
Apr 2007 Submit final doc Multihoming Problem Statement
Apr 2007 Submit final doc on MIB for NEMO Basic Support

May 2007 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for
Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments
May 2007 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for
Automobile and Highway Deployments
May 2007 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization needs for
Personal Mobile Router

Jul 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to aircraft/spacecraft
problem
Jul 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to first remaining problem

Aug 2007 Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for
Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments
Aug 2007 Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for
Automobile and Highway Deployments
Aug 2007 Submit final doc on Route Optimization needs for
Personal Mobile Router

Aug 2007 Determine how to proceed (if appropriate) with one
or more route optimization solutions
Dec 2007 Submit final doc for solution to aircraft/spacecraft
problem
Dec 2007 Submit final doc for solution to first remaining problem
Dec 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to second remaining problem
Mar 2008 Submit final doc for solution to second remaining problem
Apr 2008 Shut down or recharter the WG to solve further
identified topics

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

Aug 2007 Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for
Automobile and Highway Deployments
Aug 2007 Submit final doc on Route Optimization needs for
Personal Mobile Router

Aug 2007 Determine how to proceed (if appropriate) with one
or more route optimization solutions
Dec 2007 Submit final doc for solution to aircraft/spacecraft
problem
Dec 2007 Submit final doc for solution to first remaining problem
Dec 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to second remaining problem
Mar 2008 Submit final doc for solution to second remaining problem
Apr 2008 Shut down or recharter the WG to solve further
identified topics

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce