Subject: RE: [nemo] Deployment Requirements

From: "Roberto Baldessari" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:20:47 +0200

Hi,

> 
> [Pascal] MRs own Mobile Networks. As MRs form a nested NEMO 
> dynamically, don't they form a MANET of Mobile Networks? 
>

[Roberto] In my opinion, MRs forming a nested NEMO dynamically is not
necessary in every kind of scenario, at least not in the one I'm talking
about.
Anyway, we will reconsider TD carefully and contact you offline to
understand whether it applies to intervehicle scenario of C2C
Consortium.

For the WG, according to your interest we will keep you informed about
C2C activities.
A first pubblication will be released by the consortium within a few
months.
>From NEC side, we are also considering to formalize scenarios and
requirements in a draft (but no time schedule yet...).

Regards

Roberto

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:17:42 +0200

Dear Roberto,

Thank you for this very useful feedback. I'm glad to hear that people
from the C2C are monitoring this list.  What we would expect from an
organization such as C2C is a list of requirements sent to the NEMO WG
as an input. Of course, the list of requirements may probably cover
other IETF WGs, so it would serve as an input to the entire Internet
Areaf of the IETF. Of course, if there are specific NEMO requirements,
this would be even better, but I suspect that real deployment will
require work not only in the NEMO WG.

Ideally, we would receive similar input from other groups/organizations
working on IPv6 communications for intelligent systems transportations
(e.g. ISO, CVIS)

Then, with we could discuss this list on this mailing list, and check
with the aviation industry and other industries what are the
commonalities.

If we receive input by the next IETF (in the form of a internet-draft
would be nice, but is not mandatory), we could have this topic discussed
at length during our NEMO slot.

Thierry.

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:20:47 +0200

-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD
INRIA Rocquencourt Project-Team IMARA
+33 1 39 63 59 30

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 18:23:44 +0200

Hi Pascal,

The scenario you describe is one potential scenario (and also one
potential solution), but there exist others.

I see at least 2 classes: 
- A MANET formed of NEMO nodes
- A NEMO formed of MANET nodes

Nesting them is one (possibly good) solution.

Depending on the issues, it may fall into what you define as MANEMO,
but I'm not sure most people on this list who follow the discussion
understand what MANEMO is. 

Thierry.

On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:05:49 +0200
"Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >> 1) we started a similar discussion on the thread called:
> >> "Distributing the Mobile Prefix in the visited network" last
> November.
> >>
> >> 2) I pointed out to Roberto that there is a MANEMO ML. Since
> >> that thread, no big news on MANEMO; we are still working on
> >> the Problem statement, and version 03 of Tree Discovery was
> published:
> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thubert-tree-discove
> >> ry-03.txt
> >
> >Thanks Pascal.
> 
> [Pascal] Hi Roberto
> 
> >I think that at that time I didn't understand that MANEMO targets a
> >slightly different scenario:

> >- In our scenario, we don't focus on nested NEMO (MANET inside a mobile
> >network) but on MANETs formed by mobile networks. As far as I
> >understand, MANEMO and TD focus on nested NEMO. Do you see applications
> >of the TD strategy in the scenario we consider?
> 
> [Pascal] MRs own Mobile Networks. As MRs form a nested NEMO dynamically,
> don't they form a MANET of Mobile Networks? I'm sorry I fail to see the
> distinction. Could you please elaborate?
> Please note that when routers move together as a solid, this is a single
> NEMO not a nested one.
> 
> >- In our opinion, the adhoc routing should be indipendent from the NEMO
> >protocol. We assume that a routing protocol takes care of delivering
> >packets from node A to node B in the adhoc domain, so that node A and
> >node B are 'logically' on the same link, even if they communicate
> >through multihop. This can be achieved with various strategies. It is,
> >maybe, an implementation related concept. Nevertheless, we think it
> >allows to keep NEMO (or other mobility management approaches)
> >indipendent from the specific routing protocol of the MANET
> 
> [Pascal] Using a number of routing protocols is a usual thing. At the
> extreme, NEMO will inject a default route in the RIB while MANET will
> inject host routes. In fact, there is a fuzzy zone where both a MANET
> and NEMO-RO can inject prefixes and potentially cause the conflict. The
> redistribution rules will take care of the precedence in such a case,
> based on security policies and costs.
> 
> Then again, I'm not sure what you mean by independent. It is a single
> router and sharing the RIB is a form of interaction. MANET can provide a
> structure to the nested NEMO (like TD does) and find the default route
> to the Internet so that MRs can bind Home over one another. MANET can
> even locate a HA for NEMO in the case of a Mobile Home.
> 
> IMHO, there is value in understanding such interactions. The interaction
> between TD and RRH for instance, is a proof of such a value. This
> enables to design a simple MANET that provides for the nested NEMO
> needs. As a result, the MR gets both local and global routing integrated
> in its RIB.
> 
> This is the MANEMO concept, at the end of the day. 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Pascal
> 
>