Subject: [nemo]:draft-cho-nemo-ro-expected-properties-00.txt

From: Michael Ye <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:50:07 +0800

Hi Hosik Cho,
	
	I just wonder at your draft.
	In section 2.1,
	One possible solution is to adopt mobile IPv6
   	style route optimization by sending BU to CN.  However, this
approach
   	can result in the massively occurred binding update messages at the
   	same time, so called binding update storm (BU storm) since there
will
   	be many MNNs inside the NEMO.

	=>According to RFC3775, a MN must send BU to CN if it handles route
optimization.
	=>So   many MNNs does not derectly lead the "BU storm" you called.
	
	In section 2.2

	The nested NEMO optimization does not seek to solve the inefficiency
   	of the NEMO basic support protocol.  In the nested NEMO, the
  	 inefficiency is proportional to the nested level of the NEMO
without
  	 any measure.  The nested NEMO can have arbitrary levels of nesting.
  	 It is thought that there are two types of nesting: physical nesting
   	and logical nesting. physical nesting means a NEMO getting into
   	another NEMO (e.g. a PAN inside a vehicle).  On the other hand, the
   	logical nesting is not assuming the physical containing relation
  	 between the NEMOs.  For example, in an area where a NEMO cannot
   	access to the Internet like a tunnel, the NEMO may be attached to
its
   	neighbor NEMO to access to the Internet.  This situation will cause
  	 logical nesting of NEMOs.  Therefore, the degree of nesting can be
   	increased to more than two levels, and nested NEMO optimization
  	 should be achieved for commercial deployment of NEMO.  This memo is
  	 especially interested in nested NEMO optimization.

	=>I don't understand the logical nesting. In this draft ,you give a
exampl for explaining it ,
	=>and I am mazed because of your the example.

Regards
Michael

---

From: Michael Ye <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:59:18 +0800

Hi Hosik Cho,
	In section 3,
	One of the basic concept of network mobility is the mobiltity
   transparency.  The mobility transparency means that an MR hides its
   movement to the MNNs.  The only entity that knows the movement of
   NEMO is MR and it aggregate the location registration of underlaying
   VMNs and sub-MRs.  However, as we take care of the nested NEMO, the
   mobility transparency makes the route optimization of nested NEMO too
   difficult.  Therefore, it is needed to compare the pros and cons
   about holding the mobilty transparency.
	=> Perhaps it is good idea,but it is not good realization or it is
an impossible realization.

Regards
Michael
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Ye [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:50 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [nemo]:draft-cho-nemo-ro-expected-properties-00.txt

 Hi Hosik Cho,

	
	In section 2.2

Regards
Michael

---

From: "Hosik Cho" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:39:28 +0900

Hi,

Please, find in lines.

> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:50 AM

In my opinion, the mobile IPv6 "style" route optimization in the NEMO
context means that the MR send BU directly to the CNs (communicating with
its MNNs) as well as its HA to optimize the path from the CN to the MNN. The
MR has a responsibility to send BU to the CNs since the MNNs (both VMN and
LFN) do not know the mobility of the mobile network (mobility transparency).
So if there are N connections through an MR, the MR may send N+1 BUs
simultaneously when it changes its point of attachment. The MR is a mobility
proxy for the MNNs.

> 	=>and I am mazed because of your the example.

I'm so sorry for my insufficient explanation. :-) The physical nesting is
reasonable since it is the usual meaning of the nesting. The logical nesting
(I'm also not sure the expression is proper.) means that an MR uses the
nearby MR to get an access to the Internet (without any concerns about
authentication). If there are two PANs, each PAN can be connected to the AR
by itself or one PAN can be a sub-NEMO of another PAN. In latter scenario,
there are no physical nesting like taking a vehicle. However, the two PANs
are logically nested. I hope it has been explained more clearly.

> Michael

Regards,
Hosik

---

From: Michael Ye <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:22:58 +0800

Hi Cho, 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hosik Cho [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:39 PM
To: 'Michael Ye'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [nemo]:draft-cho-nemo-ro-expected-properties-00.txt

Hi,

Please, find in lines.

==============>
	You should present your RO method clearly. Your method maybe lead to
BU storm, but Not ALL RO methods leads to it, I think.

===========>
	:-)

Regards,
Hosik

Regards
Michael