Network Working Group P. Thubert
Internet-Draft M. Molteni
Expires: August 15, 2004 Cisco Systems
C. Ng
Panasonic Singapore Labs
H. Ohnishi
NTT
E. Paik
Seoul National Univ.
February 15, 2004
Taxonomy of Route Optimization models in the Nemo Context
draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-02
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 15, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
NEMO enables Mobile Networks by extending Mobile IP to support Mobile
Routers. This memo documents how the MIPv6 concept of Route
Optimization can to be adapted for NEMO to optimize traffic routing
between nodes in a mobile network and their correspodnet nodes.
Different route optimizations schemes are discussed, including:
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
1. route optimization with corresponding nodes initiated bu mobile
routers on behalf of the mobile network nodes;
2. a visiting mobile node performing MIPv6 RO over the NEMO base
protocol;
3. performing RO over the routing infrastructure involving
optimizing the route between two routers situated near to each
end point, instead of end-to-end; and
4. minimizing the number of tunnels required when there is multiple
levels of nesting.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. MR-to-CN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. MIPv6 Route Optimization over NEMO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Optimization within the infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1 Route Optimization within a ISP network . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2 Correspondent Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3 Distributed Anchor Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Nested Mobile Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1 Nested Tunnels Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2 Route Optimization inside the Nested Mobile Network . . . . . 12
6. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1 Securing the protocol in nested tunnels optimization . . . . . 12
6.2 Recursive complexity in route optimization . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3 Mobile Access router selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.4 Mobility transparency and RO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.5 Multihoming Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 19
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
1. Introduction
This document assumes the reader is familiar with Mobile IPv6 defined
in [1], with the concept of Mobile Router (MR) and with the Nemo
terminology defined in [2].
From the discussions on the mailing list, it appears that the common
current understanding of the problem space of Route Optimization
(RO), in the Nemo context, is still limited.
This draft attempts to clarify the state of the discussion and
propose a taxonomy of the various aspects of the problem. We will
look at different possible types of route optimizations related to
mobile network.
Firstly, the Mobile Router can initiate route optimization with
corresponding nodes (CN) on behalf of the mobile network nodes (MNN).
Secondly, we consider the feasibility of having a visiting mobile
node (VMN) performing MIPv6 RO over the NEMO base protocol.
Thirdly, we explore the prospect of performing RO over the routing
infrastructure. This involves optimizing the route between two
routers situated near to each end point.
Lastly, route optimizations involving nested mobile networks are
explored. This involves minimizing the number of tunnels required
when there is multiple levels of nesting.
2. MR-to-CN
This section covers the case where the Route Optimization is
performed between the MR and the correspondent nodes which mobile
network nodes (MNNs) are communicating with. This scenario is useful
when a lot of MNNs in a mobile network is communicating with a few
corresponding nodes. In such cases the MR only needs to send one
binding update (BU) to optimized the route between CN and a few MNNs.
A major issue with this form of optimization is that the end-to-end
principle of the MIPv6 Reverse Routability (RR) test is broken. The
RR test is meant to ensure the care-of address (CoA) and the home
address (HoA) are collocated. With a mobile network, when the MR
performs RO on behalf of the MNNs, the CoA in BU will be the MR's
CoA. Thus, a MNN is reachable via the CoA, but not at the CoA.
Some tricks may be performed on the fly by the MRs but it seems that
a clean MR-to-CN optimization for Nemo will impact the CN function.
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
Once we modify the CN behavior, we need to introduce a negotiation
from the start of the RR test to determine the protocol. In
particular, the Mobile Node and the CN must decide whether checking
the collocation is possible, and if not, whether a CN is willing to
accept the risk. If not, the optimization may be limited to
triangular routing MR->CN->HA->MR.
This is a major evolution from [1], since MIPv6 has no such
negotiation capability at this time.
3. MIPv6 Route Optimization over NEMO
MIPv6 mobile nodes can move everywhere. If the user brings mobile
nodes (e.g. MIP VoIP terminal) into the vehicle that supports NEMO
function, packets destined to the mobile node will have to be routed
not only to its home agent but also the home agent of the mobile
router. This pattern resembles Nested NEMO case which is described in
later section. This solution is needed to use both MIPv6 and NEMO
technologies efficiently.
When a Mobile Node visits a Mobile Network, the best Route
Optimization is obtained if the path in the Infrastructure is the
same as if the Mobile Network was attached at the attachment point of
the Mobile Router (i.e., there is not additional Tunneling that is
linked to NEMO).
A possible approach to this is to extend the solution for nested
mobile network optimization to include VMN as well. In this case,
the VMN is treated as though it is an MR. This type of solution will
most likely require some extensions for a MIPv6 VMN and CN.
4. Optimization within the infrastructure
This section elaborates on cases where the Route Optimization is
performed within the Routing Infrastructure. This model is useful
when an ISP wants to control the route optimization procedures and
does not desire to add any functions to the CN or the MR in order to
achieve route optimizations between CN and LFN.
In this model, both the LFN behind the MR and the Correspondent can
be MIP agnostic. The drawback is the introduction of Mobile Routes in
specific Routers, causing additional signaling and load to the
Routing Fabric.
The general idea is that there is a correspondent-side router (C-side
Router) in the infrastructure that is located "closer" to the CN than
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
the HA of the MR. This C-side Router can terminate MIP on behalf of
the CN.
Correspondent nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Home Agent
# n #
o # n # # :== Tunnel
o # n # o :== Optimized
o # n # n :== Non-Optimized
o # n #
################################## n #
C-Side oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Mobile
Router ################################ Router
|
====Mobile Network=======
Optimization in the Infrastructure
This optimization is only valid when the path via the C-side Router
is shorter than the path via the Home Agent.
The Optimization can take place independently for the 2 directions of
the traffic:
Egress
The MR locates the C-side Router, establishes a tunnel with that
Router and sets a route to the Correspondent Node via the C-side
Router over the Tunnel. After this, traffic to the Correspondent
Node does not flow through the Home Agent anymore.
Ingress
The C-side Router is on the way of the traffic from the
Correspondent Node to the Home Agent. Also, it is aware of the MR
and the mobile network behind the MR and establishes the
appropriate tunnel and route. After this, it is able to reroute
traffic to the mobile network over the tunnel to the MR.
4.1 Route Optimization within a ISP network
This form of Route Optimization provides local savings for an ISP.
This idea was described in Ohnishi's Mobile Border Gateway draft. The
goal is to locate the closest (BGP) gateway for a Correspondent that
is located outside of the domain, and tunnel between the MR and that
gateway as opposed to the Home Agent for that specific Correspondent.
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
4.2 Correspondent Router
A globally better optimization is obtained if the tunnel from the MR
is terminated closer to the destination on the Correspondent side.
This is the role of a Correspondent Router (CR).
+-------------------+ # :== Tunnel
| Autonomous System | o :== Optimized
| ----------------- | n :== Non-Optimized
| |
| |
| Correspondent nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Home Agent
| | # n #
| o | # n #
| o | # n #
| o | # n #
| o | # n #
| o | # n #
| #################################### ?
| CR oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Mobile
| #################################### Router
| | |
+-------------------+ ===========Mobile Network========
Correspondent Router
The MR locates the CR for a given Correspondent and establishes a
Tunnel to the CR for that destination and its prefix(es). Then, the
CR establishes the Tunnel back to the MR and the Mobile Routes to the
MR's Mobile Networks via that Tunnel.
A key point is that the CR must be on the interception path of the
traffic from the Correspondent to the Mobile Networks in order to
reroute the traffic over the appropriate Tunnel. This can be achieved
in several fashions:
Redistribution
There's a limited Number of CRs that cover an Autonomous System.
They redistribute the Mobile Routes on the fly, or within rate and
amount limits. Garbage Collection is done at appropriate time to
limit the perturbation on the Routing.
Default Router
The CR is a Default Router for the Correspondent, or for the whole
AS of the Correspondent (it's a border gateway). In this case,
redistribution is not needed.
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
Core Routers
The Core Routers for the network of the Correspondent are all CRs.
If the path from the correspondent to the Home Agent does not pass
via a CR, then it's not worth optimizing. If it is, then the CRs
are on the way. Again, redistribution is not needed.
4.3 Distributed Anchor Routers
Taking the idea of a correspondent router a step further, it is
possible to have a distributed set of anchor routers across the
Internet. Outgoing packets sent from a mobile network will be
tunneled to one of the nearest anchor router (instead of to the home
agent of the mobile router). This M-Side (Mobile Network Side)
anchor router will decapsulate the packet, inspect the destination,
and tunnel the packet to another anchor router situated near the CN
(C-Side Anchor Router). From there, the packet will be decapsulated
and forwarded to the CN.
Correspondent nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Home Agent
o # n #
o # n # # :== Tunnel
o # n # o :== Optimized
o # n # n :== Non-Optimized
o # n #
C-Side ################## M-Side ###### n #
Anchor oooooooooooooooooo Anchor oooo Mobile
Router ################## Router #### Router
|
====Mobile Network=======
Optimization in the Infrastructure
The C-Side Anchor Router will be subjected to the same condition as
listed in the previous sub-section if packets sent from the CN to the
mobile network are to be route-optimized too. Otherwise, the
solution will only partially optimize routing to a triangular routing
(i.e. packet sent by CN will still go through the home agent of the
mobile network).
The anchor router share many similarities with the concept of
Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) proposed in Hierarchical MIPv6 (HMIPv6)
[9]. In fact, it can be combined with HMIPv6 whereby each M-Side
anchor router is also an MAP, and the MR obtains a regional
care-of-address from the MAP.
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
5. Nested Mobile Network
5.1 Nested Tunnels Optimization
This section covers the case where one mobile network is within
another mobile network. For example, a user brings a Personal Area
Network (PAN) consisting of some IP devices to a train which is also
using NEMO technology. In another example, a car which conatins a
mobile network moves into the ferry which has another mobile network.
This configuration of mobile networks within another mobile network
is called nested Mobile Networks.
Let us illustrate the problem by an example. In this example, the
nested Mobile Network has a tree topology. In the tree each node is a
basic Mobile Network, represented by its MR.
+---------------------+
| Internet |---CN
+---------------|-----+
/ Access Router
MR3_HA |
======?======
MR1
|
====?=============?==============?===
MR5 MR2 MR6
| | |
=========== ===?========= =============
MR3
|
==|=========?== Net3
LFN1 MR4
|
=========
An example nested Mobile Network
This example focuses on a Local Fixed Node (LFN) at depth 3 (in Net3)
inside the tree, represented by its mobile router MR3. The path to
the Top Level Mobile Router (TLMR) MR1 and then the Internet is:
MR3 -> MR2 -> MR1 -> Internet
Consider the case where a LFN belonging to Net3 sends a packet to a
Correspondent Node (CN) in the Internet, and the CN replies back.
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
With no Nested Tunnels Optimization, we would have three
bi-directional nested tunnels, as described in [3] and illustrated in
the following drawings:
-----------.
--------/ /-----------.
-------/ | | /-----------
CN ------( - - | - - - | - - - | - - - | - - - (-------- LFN
MR3_HA -------\ | | \----------- MR3
MR2_HA --------\ \----------- MR2
MR1_HA ----------- MR1
No Nested Tunnels Optimization
Such a solution introduces the following problems:
"Pinball" routing
Both inbound and outbound packets will flow via the HAs of all the
MRs on their path within the NEMO, with increased latency, less
resilience and more bandwidth usage. To illustrate this effect,
the figure below shows the route taken by a packet sent from LFN
to CN:
+--> HAofMR1 ---------------------+
| |
+----------------- HAofMR2 <--+ |
| |
+---------------+ |
| V
HAofMR3 <------+ CN
|
|
LFN --> MR1 --> MR2 --> MR3
'Pinball' Routing
Packet size
An extra IPv6 header is added per level of nesting to all the
packets. The header compression suggested in [4] cannot be applied
because both the source and destination (the intermediate MR and
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
its HA), are different hop to hop.
On the other hand, with a Nested Tunnel Optimization, we would have
at most one bi-directional tunnel outside the Mobile Network, that
may depend on the traffic flow:
__- --_
Tunnel---------------------------- MR1 ( Mobile ) MR3
CN ----------( - - - - - - - - - - ( - - - - )--------- LFN
Endpoint---------------------------- MR1 ( Network ) MR3
--___---
Nested Tunnels Optimization
The end-point of such a Tunnel on the Mobile side may either be MR1
or MR3, depending on the solution. In the case of a Mobile Node
visiting Net3, that Mobile Node may also be the end-point.
The potential approaches for avoiding the nesting of tunnels include:
Mobile Aggregation
This model applies to a category of problems were the Mobile
Networks share a same administration and consistently move
together (e.g. a fleet at sea). In this model, there is a cascade
of Home Agents.
The main Home Agent is fixed in the infrastructure, and advertises
an aggregated view of all the Mobile Networks. This aggregation is
actually divided over a number of Mobile Routers, the TLMRs. The
TLMRs subdivide some of their address space to the other Mobile
Routers forming their fleet, for which they are Home Agent.
As Home Agents, the TLMRs terminate MIP Tunnels from the inside of
the Mobile Network. As Mobile Router, they also terminate their
home Tunnels. As routers, they forward packets between the 2
tunnels.
Surrogate
The TLMR acts as a proxy in the MIP registration, in a fashion of
MIPv4 Foreign Agent or HMIP MAP (see [9]). For instance, the TLMR
maintains a Tunnel to each MR, a Tunnel to the HA of each MR, and
switches packets between the two.
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
Internal Routing and gateway
This item can be approached from a MANET standpoint. This was
already done for DSR (see [10]) and AODV (see [11] and [8]) From a
Nemo standpoint, a full MANET is not necessary since the goal is
to find a way to the infrastructure, as opposed to any-to-any
connectivity.
RRH
The Reverse Routing Header (RRH) approach avoids the multiple
encapsulation of the traffic but maintains the home tunnel of the
first MR on the egress path. It is described in details in [5].
The first MR on the way out (egress direction) encapsulates the
packet over its reverse tunnel, using a form of Record Route
header, the RRH.
The next MRs simply swap their CoA and the source of the packet,
saving the original source in the RRH. The HA transforms the RRH
in a Routing Header to perform a Source Routing across the nested
Mobile Network, along the ingress path to the target MR.
Access Router Option
The Access Router Option (ARO) approach [6] is somewhat similar to
the RRH in that only the home tunnel of the first MR in the egress
path is maintained. This is done by having MR to send an ARO in
Binding Update to inform its HA the address of its access router.
Using this information, HA can build a Routing Header to
source-route a packet to the target MR within in a nested mobile
network. Details can be found in [6].
Prefix delegation approach
The prefix delegation approach [7] is somewhat to HMIPv6 what Nemo
is to MIPv6. The Access Router of the nested structure is both a
Nemo Home Agent and a DHCP-PD server, for an aggregation that it
owns and advertises to the Infrastructure. When visiting the
nested structure, each MR is delegated a mobile network prefix
from the AR using DHCP-Prefix Delegation. The MR registers this
delegated MNP to the AR that is acting as a Nemo Home Agent. The
MR also autoconfigures an address from the delegated MNP and uses
it as a CareOf to register its own MNPs to its own Home Agent
using Nemo basic support. It is possible for a MR to protect its
own MNPs while advertising in the clear the local MNP for other
MRs to roam in. This allows a strict privacy of visited and
visitors, and enables some specific policies in each Mobile
Router. Details can be found in [7].
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
5.2 Route Optimization inside the Nested Mobile Network
Although optimization within a mobile network is not within the
charter of the NEMO working group, it might be insightful to discuss
such optimizations.
The expectation is that the mobile routes installed by NEMO can
cohabit with a MANET support that would perform the RO inside the
Nested Mobile Network. In other words, MIP redistributes its prefixes
locally to a MANET and the MR-HA tunnel is bypassed.
6. General Considerations
6.1 Securing the protocol in nested tunnels optimization
These approaches are generally difficult to secure unless all the
Mobile Routers and Visiting Mobile Node belong to a same
administrative domain and share predefined Security Associations.
Even if an intermediate MR is 'trusted', this does not prove it is
able to provide the necessary bandwidth, and may not provide a good
service. Eventually, a MR that is capable of securing (IPSec) its
traffic may select a Mobile Access Router based on quality of service
heuristics as opposed as trust.
The problem is global to the whole Mobile Network in the case of a
MANET-based solution. For an RRH-based solution, the threat comes
from on-axis MRs in the nested Mobile Network but is mostly limited
to denial of service. This is detailed in [5]. The approach taken is
to limit the threat to Black Hole and Grey Hole by using IPSec.
6.2 Recursive complexity in route optimization
A number of drafts and publications suggest -or can be extended to- a
model where the Home Agent and any arbitrary Correspondent would
actually get individual binding from the chain of nested Mobile
Routers, and form a routing header appropriately.
An intermediate MR would keep track of all the pending communications
between hosts in its subtree of Mobile Networks and their CNs, and a
binding message to each CN each time it changes its point of
attachment.
If this was done, then each CN, by receiving all the binding messages
and processing them recursively, could infer a partial topology of
the nested Mobile Network, sufficient to build a multi-hop routing
header for packets sent to nodes inside the nested Mobile Network.
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
However, this extension has a cost:
1. Binding Update storm
when one MR changes its point of attachment, it needs to send a
BU to all the CNs of each node behind him. When the Mobile
Network is nested, the number of nodes and relative CNs can be
huge, leading to congestions and drops.
2. Protocol Hacks
Also, in order to send the BUs, the MR has to keep track of all
the traffic it forwards to maintain his list of CNs. In case of
IPSec tunneled traffic, that CN information may not be available.
3. CN operation
The computation burden of the CN becomes heavy, because it has to
analyze each BU in a recursive fashion in order to infer nested
Mobile Network topology required to build a multi hop routing
header.
4. Missing BU
If a CN doesn't receive the full set of PSBU sent by the MR, it
will not be able to infer the full path to a node inside the
nested Mobile Network. The RH will be incomplete and the packet
may or may not be delivered.
5. Obsolete BU
If the Binding messages are sent asynchronously by each MR, then,
when the relative position of MRs and/or the TLMR point of
attachment change rapidly, the image of Mobile Network that the
CN maintains is highly unstable. If only one BU in the chain is
obsolete due to the movement of an intermediate MR, the
connectivity may be lost.
6.3 Mobile Access router selection
In some case, nested Mobile Networks attaches to visiting network
with multiples mobile access router that are gateways to the global
internet. These RO methods may cover the function in which how the MR
in the nested Mobile Network choose the one of the mobile access
routers. This function is not explicitly described in current
methods and needs to be discussed.
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
6.4 Mobility transparency and RO
[cwng's interpretation of Mobility Transparency in RO]
It is desirable in mobility-related protocols that the mobility of a
mobile node is transparent to other entities and other layers in the
mobile node. The Basic NEMO support achieve this mobility
transparency of the mobile network to the MNNs by a MR-HA tunnel so
that MNNs need not be aware of the MR's change in point of
attachment.
Such a feature is, as mentioned, desirable. However, when route
optimizations, end-to-end principle, and other factors come into
consideration, achieving mobility transparency may not be practical.
For instance, to achieve nested tunnel optimizations, the mobility of
the top-level MR is often exposed to other entities, such as the HA
of a nested MR. In the case of MR performing BU for MNNs, it might
be necessary to pass mobility information of the MR to CN (and even
MNN) in order not to break the end-to-end principle. For the
scenario of optimization using infrastructure, the mobility
information might be necessarily exposed to correspondent routers or
MAP.
Thus, one should bear in mind when designing RO solution that a
sacrifice might be necessary when weighing conflicting factors such
as mobility transparency, optimization level, and end-to-end
integrity.
[Hosik's interpretation of Mobility Transparency in RO]
In the case of extended support of NEMO such as nested NEMO, mobility
transparency is desirable but that is not mandatory for the
efficiency of the route optimization. For example, the notebook and
PDA inside a vehicle can access to the Internet through the mobile
router of the vehicle. In that case, if the movement of the vehicle
affects to the notebook or the PDA, they can perform individual
binding update operation to the correspondent node or its home agent
but that can cause location privacy problem.
[Onishi's interpretation of Mobility Transparency in RO]
In RO solutions, MR can optimize the route between its own HA and MR.
It is desirable that communication can not be interrupted by this
route optimization. ????
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
6.5 Multihoming Considerations
In multihomed mobile networks, route optimization is dependant on how
the connections to the Internet are available and selected.
In case of macro mobility, we may have multiple HAs from place to
place. New route optimization could be possible by routing between CN
and one of the multiple Home Agents (possibly using differenc Home
Addresses).
When multiple connections are available for the purpose of fault
tolerance, a selection mechanism is needed for CN to eveluate the
connection availability in order to perform route optimization.
7. Conclusion
The Problem space of Route Optimization in the NEMO context is
multifold and can be split is several work areas. It will be
critical, though, that the solution to a given piece of the puzzle be
compatible and integrate smoothly with the others.
Hopefully, the solutions will build on MIPv6 ([1]), as recommended by
the NEMO Charter. On the other hand, MIPv6 seems to be evolving in a
direction that makes it more and more difficult to provide a NEMO
solution with backward compatibility, since:
1) The RR test prevents a MR-LFN dichotomy on the Mobile Side,
2) The RR test has no negotiable option and is not open for
extension, and
3) The HaO and RH type 2 are designed for a collocated CareOf
Address. More specifically, they are not designed to be multi-hop as
RRH is, and not extensible, though RRH can be considered as an
extension of HAO.
The authors intent is to trigger fruitful discussions that in turn
will enhance our common understanding of the problem space so that at
some point, this paper turns into a problem statement for the Nemo
Route Optimization.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank: Greg Daley, Thierry Ernst, Hiroyuki
Ohnishi, T.J. Kniveton, Alexandru Petrescu, Hesham Soliman, Ryuji
Wakikawa and Patrick Wetterwald for their various contributions.
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
References
[1] Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24 (work in progress), July
2003.
[2] Ernst, T. and H. Lach, "Network Mobility Support Terminology",
draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-00 (work in progress), May 2003.
[3] kniveton, t., "Mobile Router Support with Mobile IP",
draft-kniveton-mobrtr-02 (work in progress), July 2002.
[4] Deering, S. and B. Zill, "Redundant Address Deletion when
Encapsulating IPv6 in IPv6",
draft-deering-ipv6-encap-addr-deletion-00 (work in progress),
November 2001.
[5] Thubert, P. and M. Molteni, "IPv6 Reverse Routing Header and
its application to Mobile Networks",
draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header-04 (work in
progress), February 2004.
[6] Tanaka, T. and C. Ng, "Securing Nested Tunnels Optimization
with Access Router Option",
draft-ng-nemo-access-router-option-00 (work in progress),
November 2002.
[7] Droms, R. and P. Thubert, "DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO",
draft-droms-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-01 (work in progress), February
2004.
[8] Wakikawa, R., "Global Connectivity for IPv6 Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks", draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-03 (work in progress),
October 2003.
[9] Soliman, H., Castelluccia, C., Malki, K. and L. Bellier,
"Hierarchical MIPv6 mobility management (HMIPv6)",
draft-ietf-mobileip-hmipv6-06 (work in progress), July 2002.
[10] Johnson, D., "The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks (DSR)", draft-ietf-manet-dsr-09 (work in
progress), April 2003.
[11] Perkins, C., Royer, E. and S. Das, "Ad Hoc On Demand Distance
Vector (AODV) Routing", draft-ietf-manet-aodv-11 (work in
progress), July 2002.
[12] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
1981.
[13] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
Authors' Addresses
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems Technology Center
Village d'Entreprises Green Side
400, Avenue Roumanille
Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410
FRANCE
EMail: pthubert@cisco.com
Marco Molteni
Cisco Systems Technology Center
Village d'Entreprises Green Side
400, Avenue Roumanille
Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410
FRANCE
EMail: mmolteni@cisco.com
Chan-Wah Ng
Panasonic Singapore Laboratories Pte Ltd
Blk 1022 Tai Seng Ave #06-3530
Tai Seng Industrial Estate
Singapore 534415
SG
EMail: cwng@psl.com.sg
Hiroyuki Ohnishi
NTT network service systems laboratories, NTT cooperation
9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
Musashino-shi
Tokyo 180-8585
JAPAN
EMail: ohnishi.hiroyuki@lab.ntt.co.jp
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
Eun Kyoung Paik
Seoul National University
Shillim-dong, Kwanak-gu
Seoul 151-744
KOREA
EMail: eun@mmlab.snu.ac.kr
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RO-Taxonomy February 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Thubert, et al. Expires August 15, 2004 [Page 20]