Subject: Multihomed NEMO(Re: [Monami6] 1st draft agenda for a Monami6 BOF)

From: Masayuki Kumazawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:13:11 +0900

Dear all,

I'm interested in the case of NEMO with several MRs, which will be applicable to the Wireless PAN.
I think NEMO-specific issue occurs when multiple MRs are included in a NEMO.

I'd like to discuss it in the next Monami6 BoF in the 63th IETF if possible.
However, Monami6 seems to tackle with multihoming in MIPv6 at first in the
charter and agenda.

Will the NEMO-specific issues and solutions be discussed in the next IETF or later?

<[email-masked]> From Chan-Wah Ng-san
>On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 09:28 -0400, Nicolas Montavont wrote:
>> Romain KUNTZ wrote:
>> 
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> >
>> >> The expected output of the WG is: * A solution to exchange policies 
>> >> between the mobile node and the home agent (Standard Track)
>> >
>> >
>> > What about between Mobile Router and MNN? As the charter says it will
>> > also focus on MR operating NEMO BS and as such kind of policies are the
>> > most interesting in multihomed environment, I believe it fits in the
>> > charter.
>> 
>> Sure, but for that we have to be sure that NEMO WG would agree to move 
>> multihoming support to Monami6. But we can raise this issue during the 
>> BOF, I also think that communication between MNNs and MRs is very important.
>> 
>
>Speaking as the co-author of the NEMO WG Multihoming Draft, there has
>been no consensus on whether a solution would be added to the NEMO
>charter.  So possibilities of transferring work to other WG is open.
>
>Speaking as an individual, if Monami6 becomes a WG, I think it would be
>logical to transfer thw work to Monami6.  By then, the NMEO WG should be
>busy debating RO solutions ... ;)
>
>/rgds
>/cwng
>
>_______________________________________________
>Monami6 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
-----------
Masayuki Kumazawa

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:52:14 -0400

Hi Masayuki,

>However, Monami6 seems to tackle with multihoming in MIPv6 at first in the
Actually the main purpose of Monami6 is edge multihoming, which means we 
consider MNs / MRs as leafs of the Internet. We produced three 
documents, which are multihoming problem statement (which apply to both 
MRs and MNs) and two other problem statements which tackle specifically 
MIPv6 and NEMO respectively. The intend to work on these 2 documents was 
to show the issues that prevent MNs/MRs to enjoy the benefits of being 
multihomed. We then have identifed issues, based on the current 
specification of each protocol.

It is true that by now the draft specific to NEMO is currently a NEMO WG 
draft, that's why this BOF seems to be more oriented to MIPv6.

But given the high interest expressed by people on this mailin list to 
work on MRs multihoming and eventually to develop a protocol between 
MRs, or/and between MRs and MNNs and/or between MNNs and CNs (thanks 
Koshiro for this idea), we definitly gone a talk about including such an 
area in the goal of Monami6. But we need a consensus to decide if this 
work can be done in Monami6 (in case it becomes a WG) instead of NEMO WG.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:52:14 -0400

Hi Masayuki,

Nicolas

---

From: Masayuki Kumazawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:13:50 +0900

Hi Nicolas,

Thank you for your kind explanation.
And I'm sorry that I repeated the same discussion that had been 
already made.

I think that on multihoming MIPv6 and NEMO have many common or 
similar issues and it would be more fruitful that they are discussed 
in the same WG.

Thanks and regards,
Masayuki

<[email-masked]> From Nicolas Montavont-san

-----------
Masayuki Kumazawa

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:18:17 -0400

Dear Masayuki,

>And I'm sorry that I repeated the same discussion that had been 
Don't be sorry, we were probably not clear enough.

>similar issues and it would be more fruitful that they are discussed 
Sure, this was our first intend. We identified that benefits are the 
same for both NEMO and MIPv6, and some of the issues are the same. This 
is why we made a generic problem statement, and that it makes sense to 
deal with the issues in a single WG.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:18:17 -0400

Dear Masayuki,

Nicolas