[Search] [txt|xml|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
NEMO Working Group                                                 C. Ng
Internet-Draft                                                 J. Hirano
Expires: August 20, 2008                                       Panasonic
                                                             A. Petrescu
                                                                Motorola
                                                                 E. Paik
                                                                      KT
                                                       February 17, 2008


      Consumer Electronics Requirements for Network Mobility Route
                              Optimization
                        draft-ng-nemo-ce-req-02

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document illustrates different deployments of Network Mobility
   (NEMO) from the consumer electronics perspective.  From these
   deployments, a set of requirements is deduced for Route Optimization



Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


   (RO) with NEMO.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Deployments of Personal Mobile Router  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Simple Personal Area Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Personal Mobile Router in a Car  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.3.  Residence Home Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.  Characteristics of Route Optimization for Consumer
       Electronics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.1.  Required Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.1.1.  Req1: Unmodified LFNs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.1.2.  Req2: Low Processing Load  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.1.3.  Req3: Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.1.4.  Req4: Protocol Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.2.  Desired Characteristics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.2.1.  Des1: MR-to-MR Route Optimization  . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.2.2.  Des2: Nested-NEMO Route Optimization . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.2.3.  Des3: Intra-NEMO Route Optimization  . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.2.4.  Des4: Separability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.2.5.  Des5: Multihoming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.  Normative Reference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.2.  Informative Reference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix A.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16




















Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


1.  Introduction

   Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support [3] allows a whole network to
   change its point of attachment while maintaining reachability and
   session continuity. [4] and [5] investigate the inefficiencies in
   NEMO Basic Support, and analyze the solution space for Route
   Optimization (RO) with NEMO from a technical perspective.

   This document explores the different deployment scenarios of NEMO
   from the perspective of consumer electronics.  This mainly entails a
   personal device, called the Personal Mobile Router, as the primary
   node which a user utilizes to allow the user's other devices to
   communicate with other nodes in the global Internet.  This is
   detailed in Section 2.  From these deployments, a set of requirements
   is inferred in Section 3.

   It is expected for readers to be familiar with terminologies related
   to mobility in [1] and NEMO related terms defined in [2].  Interested
   readers may also refer to [6] and [7] for the requirements from the
   automobile and aviation industries respectively.


2.  Deployments of Personal Mobile Router

   The Personal Mobile Router is generally envisaged as a mobile
   communications device, most probably a cellular handphone, with
   embedded router functionality so as to allow other personal devices
   (such as MP3 Players, Digital Cameras) to access the global Internet.
   In such a deployment, it is expected for the Personal Mobile Router
   to provide all the routing capabilities of the personal area network.
   This means that one would generally not expect devices (i.e.  LFNs)
   such as digital camera or music players to have routing capabilities.
   In other words, LFNs are envisaged as simple IPv6 hosts.

   However, it is possible for there to be a Local Mobile Node (MNN) in
   the personal area network.  For instance, a laptop or a WLAN-enabled
   PDA can break off from the personal area network and connect to the
   Internet on its own.  Thus, the device becomes a MIPv6 host, with its
   home address configured from the Mobile Network Prefix of the
   personal area network.

   This section illustrates three different deployment scenarios with
   respect to the Personal Mobile Router.  First is a simple personal
   area network where NEMO services is provided by a service provider
   (such as an telecommunications operator).  Next is the deployment
   where the Personal Mobile Router is docked within a car and serves as
   an additional Mobile Router for the car network.  The last scenario
   is the case where the Personal Mobile Router obtains a network prefix



Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


   not directly from its Internet service providers.  Instead, the
   network prefix is allocated from the user's residence.


2.1.  Simple Personal Area Network

   The simplest deployment is when the Personal Mobile Router is simply
   used to provide Internet access to other devices in a user's personal
   area network.  This is the case where the user subscribes to a
   mobility service provider that allocates a network prefix for the
   user's personal area network.  One example of this is the 3GPP
   Personal Network Management services [8].

   For this scenario, typical communications will be audio/video
   streaming from a multimedia content server to the music/video player
   in the user's personal area network.  This is a case of
   communications between a LFN with a CN in the global internet.

                                          ----------      ----
                       +-----------------| Internet |----| CN |
                       |                  ----------      ----
                ----------------
               |Mobility Service|
               |    Provider    |
                ----------------
                       |
               /       | 3GPP
               |    --------
               |   | laptop | (MR)
               |    --------
         PAN  <        |
        (NEMO) |       | wifi
               |    -------
               |   |  PDA  | (LFN)
               \    -------

                      Figure 1: Simple PAN deployment


   An alternative situation will be communications between devices from
   two (or more) different personal area networks.  For example, two
   different users may engage in a game with their personal
   entertainment devices (such as Nintendo or Play Station portables),
   or share their audio files stored in their music players.  This is a
   case of communications between two LFNs from different NEMO.






Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


                          ------------------
                         | Mobility Service |
                         |   Provider (*)   |
                        / ------------------ \
                       /                      \
                      |                        |
                      | 3GPP                   | 3GPP
                   --------                 --------
                  | laptop | (MR)          | laptop | (MR)
                   --------                 --------
                      |                        |
                      | Wired                  | wifi
                      |                        |
                   --------                 --------
                  |Nintendo| (LFN)         |Nintendo| (LFN)
                   --------                 --------

   (*) - The two MRs may subscribe to the same or different Mobility
         Service Provider(s)

                 Figure 2: Communications between Two LFNs

   An interesting scenario of a Personal Area Network that is beginning
   to emerge is where the Personal Area Network is composed of a
   Personal Mobile Router and wearable sensors.  Typical deployment [9]
   would be for a patient who wears wearable sensors that monitor his/
   her physical conditions (eg., heartbeat, body temperature, blood
   pressure, etc) periodically and transmit the measurement to a
   hospital server through the Personal Mobile Router.  This is a case
   of communications between LFNs and a CN wherein the main traffic from
   the LFN to the CN.

                                        ----------      ----------
                              +--------| Internet |----| Hospital | (CN)
                              |         ----------      ----------
                              | GPRS
                         ------------
                        | Cell Phone | (MR)
                         ------------
                              |
                  +-----------+------------+
                  |       Bluetooth        |
              ----------            ---------------
       (LFN) |  Finger  |          | Earphone Body | (LFN)
             | Oximeter |          |  Thermometer  |
              ----------            ---------------

         Figure 3: Wearable Sensors Network for Medical Monitoring



Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


   A more complex use case for Personal Area Network can be described as
   a dynamic change (scenario) between two different Personal Area
   Network situations having the same entities.  Each entity dynamically
   changes its role (from, for example, MR to LFN), and, more
   importantly, the routing task is moved from one entity to another.

   Consider a Personal Area Network built from one PDA and one laptop.
   In the first situation, the laptop is the Mobile Router.  It uses its
   WiMax interface to connect to the Internet and its WiFi interface to
   offer access to the PDA.  Following this, a second situation is
   formed where the PDA connects its 3G interface to the Internet
   (becoming the Mobile Router) and gives access to the laptop over
   WiFi.  This is illustrated in Figure 4 below.

            ^ to Internet
            |
            | WiMax
         --------                        --------
        | laptop | (MR)                 | laptop | (LFN)
         --------               \        --------
            |               -----\           |
            | wifi          -----/           | wifi
            |                   /            |
         -------                          -------
        |  PDA  | (LFN)                  |  PDA  | (MR)
         -------                          -------
                                             | 3GPP
                                             |
                                             +-------> to Internet

                    Figure 4: Switching of Roles in PAN

   Both these situations can exist independently, as there are existing
   software that is currently supporting these.  For example, both
   Microsoft Windows XP (laptop) and Windows Mobile (PDA) have the
   ability to connect one interface to Internet and offer access over
   the other interface.

   However, the automatic change between these two situations is not
   possible without user intervention.  The issues around this relate to
   interface configuration, default route configuration and others.  If
   Mobile IP is used then there are additional issues with respect to
   pre-established behavior (eg. use or do not use tunnels).

   An example application where this support is needed is described
   next.  The scenario above describes the movement of the main routing
   task from the laptop to the PDA.  The routing task (run Mobile IP and
   NEMO, and hide the LFN from mobility events) can be very consuming



Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


   and can compete with user interface events.  For example, a user of a
   laptop and PDA sets up the laptop as MR and PDA as LFN.  The user
   continues editing a document on the laptop.  Then, another user
   arrives with a laptop and needs access.  At this point the first user
   is actually interested in making the PDA to be MR (and not his/her
   laptop) thus avoiding being disturbed by the more consuming routing
   task of laptop (routing for two users is doubled).

   Depending on the communicating applications, these kinds of scenarios
   needing dynamic change of role of the entity performing the routing
   task can be very numerous.

2.2.  Personal Mobile Router in a Car

   A second scenario involving the Personal Mobile Router is when the
   user docks the Personal Mobile Router into a car network.  This
   allows the communications devices in the vehicle to use the Personal
   Mobile Router to access information from the Internet.  It also
   allows the personal devices in the personal area network to use the
   Mobile Router in the vehicle network to communicate with
   correspondent nodes on the Internet.  In other words, the two mobile
   networks (personal area network and vehicle network) merges to form a
   multihomed network.

   There are two possible configurations that could arise.  The first
   possible configuration is where the car sensors and automotive
   devices are connected to Car Mobile Router using a wired medium (such
   as the Controller Area Network, etc), and the personal devices are
   connected to the Personal Mobile Router using a wireless medium (such
   as the Bluetooth or Ultra Wide Band).  The Personal Mobile Router is
   connected to the Car Mobile Router via a docking mechanism installed
   in the car.  This is illustrated in Figure 5 below.

                            WiMAX            3G
           Car Sensors        |               |     Personal Devices
       & Automobile Devices   |               |  (Eg. iPod, PSP, Lumix)
           _       _          |               |          _     _
          |_|     |_|      --------        --------     |_|   |_|
           |       |      |  Car   |      |Personal|     |     |
         --+--+----+--+---| Mobile |======| Mobile |-----+--+--+--
          _   |   _   |   | Router | Dock | Router |    _   |
         |_|--+  |_|--+    --------        --------    |_|--+

        <----- CAR NEMO ----->                <------- PAN ------>

                  Figure 5: Separate Links in Merged NEMO

   In such a merged network, the vehicle network devices and the



Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


   personal area network devices will continue to use their own original
   network prefixes to communicate with external nodes.  Hence, one way
   to view this is to treat it as if the two Mobile Routers attaches to
   each other, and uses each other as an additional access router.  This
   implies that the a communication between a MNN and a correspondent
   node may go through two Mobile Routers (e.g. the communication from
   the car navigation device to a traffic condition server passes
   through first the Mobile Router of the car, and then the Personal
   Mobile Router).  Hence, this can be viewed as a case of a nested
   NEMO.

   A second possibility is that the car network and the personal area
   network fused into a single network with two mobile routers.  One way
   this can happen is when the two networks use the same wireless
   technology such as Bluetooth or Wireless Universal Serial Bus as the
   interconnection medium.  This is shown in Figure 6 below.  This is a
   typical NEMO with multiple mobile routers and prefixes [10].  The car
   devices are free to configure an address from the Mobile Network
   Prefix of the Personal Mobile Router to communicate with other
   correspondent nodes in the Internet (such as a realtime traffic
   monitoring server).  Similarly, the personal devices are free to
   configure an address from the Mobile Network Prefix of the Car Mobile
   Router to communicate with other correspondent nodes in the Internet
   (such as a You-Tube video server).

                           WiMAX            3G
                             |               |
                          --------        --------
                         |  Car   |      |Personal|
                         | Mobile |      | Mobile |
                         | Router |      | Router |
              _       _   --------        --------   _     _
             |_|     |_|     |               |      |_|   |_|
              |       |      |               |       |     |
            --+--+----+--+---+---------------+-------+--+--+--
             _   |   _   |                          _   |
            |_|--+  |_|--+                         |_|--+

             Car Sensors                      Personal Devices
         & Automobile Devices              (Eg. iPod, PSP, Lumix)

              <------- Merged Into a Single NEMO --------->

                  Figure 6: A Single Link in Merged NEMO

   When the car network and the personal area network fused into a
   single network, LFNs in this single network can communicate with each
   other.  For example, a sensor which was a LFN of the personal area



Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


   network senses the body temperature of the driver and send this
   information to the activator which was a LFN of the car network to
   make the car environment comfortable for the driver.  Since the car
   network and the personal area network became a single network, this
   communication is a case of intra-NEMO communication.

2.3.  Residence Home Network

   This scenario is a special deployment as it differs from the usual
   subscription model that is more commonly used.  Basically, in this
   scenario, the home network of the Personal Mobile Router (as far as
   NEMO is concerned) is literally the "home" -- i.e. the residence of
   the user.  It is envisioned that the user deploys a residence-wide
   network with a set-top box serving as the gateway.  This set-top box
   is connected to the Internet via broadband connection (cable or ADSL)
   and obtains an IPv6 prefix from the ISP.  Part of the IPv6 prefix
   obtained is then assigned as the prefix for the user's personal are
   network (i.e. the Mobile Network Prefix for the personal area
   network).  The set-top box is thus configured as the home agent of
   the Personal Mobile Router.

   Typically, the devices in the personal area network (i.e.  LFNs)
   would communicate mostly with other devices in the residence network
   (e.g. personal video player accessing movie stored in a digital video
   recorder in the residence).  In such situation, route optimization is
   redundant.  However, there exist situations where multiple personal
   area networks (each belonging to different family members) belong to
   the same residence network.  Devices from these different personal
   area networks may communicate with each other often enough.  In the
   latter situation, it is a case of two MNNs from different NEMO
   communicating with each other.


3.  Characteristics of Route Optimization for Consumer Electronics

   Not all communications involving personal area network require route
   optimization.  There are, however, two particular use cases where
   route optimization is highly preferable.  The first use case is when
   devices in a personal area network are used for real time interactive
   applications which are sensitive to round trip delays.  Examples
   include voice-over-IP communications and multiplayer gaming sessions.
   This usually entails communications between two devices from two
   different personal area network, as illustrated in Section 2.1 and
   Section 2.3.  In such cases, there might be two different home agents
   involved (one for each NEMO), hence making the improvement in delay
   reduction of route optimization more significant.  The second use
   case is when the home network is congested, or otherwise bandwidth-
   limited.  One example is the residence home network as described in



Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


   Section 2.3.  Most broadband residence access are asymmetrical (i.e.
   the uplink bandwidth is much smaller than the downlink bandwidth),
   making it unsuitable for the home agent (e.g. set-top box) to forward
   large amount of packets to Personal Mobile Routers.

   Where route optimization is highly preferable, we can infer the
   following requirements (denoted by "Req") in Section 3.1 and
   desirable features (denoted by "Des") in Section 3.2 from the
   deployment scenarios described in Section 2.

3.1.  Required Characteristics

3.1.1.  Req1: Unmodified LFNs

   A route optimization solution MUST operate even when LFNs are
   unmodified

   Rationale:

      Devices in the personal area network are envisaged as simple IPv6
      node.  The Personal Mobile Router is expected to provide route
      optimization services for any consumer electronic devices that
      connect to its personal area network.  Thus, it is expected for
      LFNs to remain unmodified and unaware of mobile network's movement
      for route optimizations.


3.1.2.  Req2: Low Processing Load

   A route optimization solution MUST NOT increase the processing load
   of the MR significantly

   Rationale:

      The Personal Mobile Router is a small mobile device (e.g.
      handphone) that is limited in battery power.  Hence, any route
      optimization solution should not significantly increases the
      processing load of the MR.

      Processing load here is used to generally refer to the computation
      load, signaling load, and memory storage requirements for
      establishing and managing a route optimization

      A quantitative requirement on what is the acceptable increase in
      processing load is impossible to be specified; however, one
      possibility is to use the current Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization
      as a benchmark reference.  A processing load increase for route
      optimization of a session is acceptable if it is comparable to the



Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


      amount of additional processing for Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization
      (i.e. the CoTI/CoT and HoTI/HoT signaling and adding of home
      address destination option).


3.1.3.  Req3: Security

   A route optimization solution MUST NOT expose the mobile network to
   additional security risk

   Rationale:

      Security is a prime consideration in the deployment of Personal
      Mobile Router, since the personal area network may store private
      information.  In general, a personal area network would not allow
      external devices to attach to the mobile network, hence the
      Personal Mobile Router will the most important gateway in which
      security of the personal area network is enforced.  As such, any
      route optimization solution should not expose the Personal Mobile
      Router to additional risk as compared to NEMO Basic Support.

      Particularly, it must not be possible for other nodes to claim
      ownership of the Mobile Network Prefix (in entirety or in parts).
      Additionally, denial-of service attacks on the Personal Mobile
      Router (e.g. by forcing the Personal Mobile Router to send a huge
      amount of signaling packets or to maintain a large number of
      signaling states) must not be possible.


3.1.4.  Req4: Protocol Harmony

   A route optimization solution MUST NOT break or prevent the use of
   existing protocols

   Rationale:

      As LFNs are assumed to be unmodified (see Req1), the
      communications protocols used by them must not be modified as
      well.  A route optimization solution used by the Personal Mobile
      Router must not cause any communications between the LFN and its
      correspondent node to stop working.  In other words, LFNs should
      be able to continue to use any protocols that they are able to use
      without route optimization.  This includes IPSec and other IP
      layer signaling protocols.







Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


3.2.  Desired Characteristics

3.2.1.  Des1: MR-to-MR Route Optimization

   As seen in Section 2, most of the communications we envisaged are in
   the form of a MNN communicating with another MNN in different
   personal area networks.  As we do not expect MNNs to be involved in
   route optimization signaling, a suitable route optimization would
   likely be between the two MRs.  This way, correspondent nodes would
   not be impacted.

3.2.2.  Des2: Nested-NEMO Route Optimization

   In Section 2.2, a scenario is illustrated where the Personal Mobile
   Router is attaching to the car mobile router for Internet access (and
   vice versa).  If the car mobile router performs route optimization
   for its network, then the Personal Mobile Router can run a separate
   route optimization session to achieve fully-optimized route.
   Alternatively, it is also possible for the Personal Mobile Router to
   support some mechanism that achieve nested-NEMO route optimization.

   This desired feature can be generally extended to other forms of
   nesting where the user brings a PAN into a larger mobile network,
   such as in a plane, a train, or a ship.  It is desired that a route
   optimization solution should yield a fully optimized route regardless
   of whether the Mobile Router of the larger mobile network performs
   route optimization or not.

3.2.3.  Des3: Intra-NEMO Route Optimization

   In Section 2.2, a scenario is illustrated where nodes in a the car
   network and nodes in the personal area network communicates with each
   other.  It is desirable that any route optimization solution would
   work for intra-NEMO communications as well.  It will be even
   preferable if such intra-NEMO route optimizations can be achieved
   without sending signalling messages out of the mobile network.

3.2.4.  Des4: Separability

   As route optimization would inevitably increase the processing load
   of the Personal Mobile Router, it would be desired that the user be
   able to select route optimization for some traffic and use the bi-
   directional tunnel with home agent for other traffic.  In other
   words, a route optimization solution should preferably not be a "all-
   or-nothing" mechanism.  It should be possible to have both route
   optimized flows and non-optimized sessions simultaneously.





Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


3.2.5.  Des5: Multihoming

   As described in Section 2.1, it is likely for a PAN to be equipped
   with multiple access technologies.  Thus, it is desirable that a
   route optimization solution be able to make use of multiple access
   networks when available.  It is also desirable to have this feature
   regardless of whether all the available access to external networks
   reside in one or multiple devices.  For instance, in Section 2.2, a
   scenario is described where there are two Mobile Routers in the
   merged network.


4.  IANA Considerations

   This is an informational document and does not require any IANA
   action.


5.  Security Considerations

   Security is a prime consideration in the deployment of Personal
   Mobile Router.  The requirements for security involving the Personal
   Mobile Router are discussed in Section 3.


6.  References

6.1.  Normative Reference

   [1]   Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
         RFC 3753, June 2004.

   [2]   Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support
         Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007.

6.2.  Informative Reference

   [3]   Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
         "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
         January 2005.

   [4]   Ng, C., Thubert, P., Watari, M., and F. Zhao, "Network Mobility
         Route Optimization Problem Statement", RFC 4888, July 2007.

   [5]   Ng, C., Zhao, F., Watari, M., and P. Thubert, "Network Mobility
         Route Optimization Solution Space Analysis", RFC 4889,
         July 2007.




Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


   [6]   Baldessari, R., "C2C-C Consortium Requirements for NEMO Route
         Optimization", draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-01 (work in
         progress), July 2007.

   [7]   Eddy, W., "NEMO Route Optimization Requirements for Operational
         Use in Aeronautics and  Space Exploration Mobile Networks",
         draft-eddy-nemo-aero-reqs-02 (work in progress), August 2007.

   [8]   "Service requirements for Personal Network Management (PNM)",
         3GPP TS 22.259, June 2006.

   [9]   Oliver, N. and F. Flores-Mangas, "HealthGear: A Real-time
         Wearable System for Monitoring and Analyzing Physiological
         Signals", <http://research.microsoft.com/~nuria/healthgear/
         noliver-healthgear.pdf>.

   [10]  Ng, C., Ernst, T., Paik, E., and M. Bagnulo, "Analysis of
         Multihoming in Network Mobility Support", RFC 4980,
         October 2007.


Appendix A.  Change Log

   o  draft-ng-nemo-ro-req-02:

      *  Added "Protocol Harmony" as requirement

      *  Added "Separability" and "Multihoming" as desired feature

      *  Elaborated more on some of the explanations of requirements

   o  draft-ng-nemo-ro-req-01:

      *  Expanded Section 2.2 to include different possible
         configurations

      *  New scenarios in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2

      *  Organized Section 3 to have one-liner requirements, followed by
         the explanation to give a more concise presentation

      *  Added Jun, Eun Kyoung and Alexandru as co-authors

      *  Various other editorial fixes

   o  draft-ng-nemo-ro-req-00:





Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


      *  Initial version.


Authors' Addresses

   Chan-Wah Ng
   Panasonic Singapore Laboratories Pte Ltd
   Blk 1022 Tai Seng Ave #06-3530
   Tai Seng Industrial Estate
   Singapore  534415
   SG

   Phone: +65 65505420
   Email: chanwah.ng@sg.panasonic.com


   Jun Hirano
   Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (Panasonic)
   5-3 Hikarino-oka
   Yokosuka, Kanagawa  239-0847
   JP

   Phone: +81 46 840 5123
   Email: hirano.jun@jp.panasonic.com


   Alexandru Petrescu
   Motorola
   Parc les Algorithmes Saint Aubin
   Gif-sur-Yvette  91193
   France

   Email: Alexandru.Petrescu@motorola.com


   Eun Kyoung Paik
   KT
   Portable Internet Team, Convergence Lab., KT
   17 Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu
   Seoul  137-792
   Korea

   Phone: +82-2-526-5233
   Fax:   +82-2-526-5200
   Email: euna@kt.co.kr
   URI:   http://mmlab.snu.ac.kr/~eun/





Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            NEMO CE Requirements             February 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Ng, et al.               Expires August 20, 2008               [Page 16]