NEMO WG meeting Agenda, IETF68 March 18-23 2007 Prague Chairs: TJ Kniveton & Thierry Ernst Thanks to our Jabber scribes, Alexandru Petrescu and Marshall Eubanks. === NEMO WG page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nemo-charter.html NEMO Additional Page: http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/ NEMO Status Page: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/ === TUESDAY, March 20, 2007 1740-1950 1. Welcome, agenda bashing ....................................... 05 mins Chairs 2. TAHI Test Event ............................................... 05 mins 3. WG documents status .......................................... 05 mins Chairs http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/ - TJ asked about one or both dhcp-pd and bu-based pd. - Implementation status? 4. WG rechartering status ........................................ 10 mins Chairs - IESG comments were addressed, and the charter was resubmitted to the IESG. - According to Jari A., it is on the telechat agenda for the next IESG meeting in the next week or so. - Nothing surprising; expected to go through. - TJ: It is still important to make progress with RO use cases, even while charter process is happening. - TJ: There is currently a plan to merge MIP6, NEMO and MONAMI working groups. However, we will continue to use this charter as the basis for work going forward. (Charters may eventually be merged together). 5. Aviation Industry Requirements ................................ 10 mins Marshall Eubanks Multi-Domained, Multi-Homed Mobile Networks http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ivancic-mobile-platforms-problem-00.txt Aviation Global Internet Operations Requirements http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-davis-aviationreq-00.txt Marshall gave this talk for Will Ivancic and Terry Davis, since they were not able to attend. Will participated in the meeting over Jabber, however. - Draft is about 80% complete. Right now there are some internal discussions about requirements. - Jari Arkko: I have to look at the document, but I am probably going to recommend splitting the Route Optimization and the Multihoming parts into separate documents. - TJ: It's important to describe the problem, the many multihoming possibilities, and why it's not feasible to simply create tunnels. This should be accessible to people outside the NEMO working group. - Discussion about whether nested MRs should be in or out of scope, and how it would work when a passenger has an MR. - Discussion about three separate networks and how air traffic control would be backed up as a critical service. 6. Personal Mobile Router ........................................ 10 mins Vijay Devarapalli No draft. - This describes the problem of route optimization when you have two users with PMRs and devices talking to each other. - This type of scenario would be popular in the US. - TJ: The question is what's needed in addition to the base NEMO spec to make these types of scenarios deployable so that routing is not atrocious. 7. Automotive Industry Requirements .............................. 15 mins Roberto Baldessari C2C-C Consortium Requirements for Usage of NEMO in VANETs" http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-00.txt - VANET use case with 802.11p (Wireless Access for the Vehicular Environment: WAVE) - C2C-C consortium is mostly European, and describing how VANETs would work - Issues shown regarding security, and anonymity (a requirement for using pseudonyms in the mobile network) - Charlie P. pointed out that the autoconf working group has some technology that could be applicable here too - Alex P. pointed out that autoconf, manet, and other WGs have protocols that could be useful in the infrastructure-less case, and protocols beyond NEMO should be considered, based on the requirements. 8. Analysis of MANET and NEMO .................................... 10 mins Teco Boot http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boot-manet-nemo-analysis-00.txt - Teco presented an analysis of different features of the NEMO and MANET protocols. - There was some discussion about whether MANET was moderately scalable, or better - Charlie P. pointed out that they are designed to solve different problems, so it's slightly hard to compare. - Further discussion about how you can use MANET and NEMO together, and also how it is difficult to compare them. 9. NEMO RO Use Case, Issues & Requirements in the MANEMO Scenarios 45 mins Wakikawa & Thubert & Boot & Clausen MANEMO Problem Statement http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wakikawa-manemo-problem-statement-00.txt NEMO Route Optimization Problem Statement http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-clausen-nemo-ro-problem-statement-01.txt - Some slides were shown about the MANEMO scenarios, including the U-2010 project which is intended to cover the “wireless fringe” for first responders. - The U-2010 project is a European project based in the Netherlands (?) - There was a bit of discussion about what the MANEMO case really means and what the basic problem statement is? - http://www.mobileip.jp/MANEMO - Later in the week, there was a “BAR BOF” for MANEMO and these cases were discussed in more detail. - The conclusion is that this work is an important application of MANET principles, and has some parts that can be addressed by NEMO. - The current thinking is to address the various unsolved aspects of this problem in the NEMO, MANET, and possibly AUTOCONF working groups, and if there are additional problems that come up, to revisit the topic at a later point. Note: Please see the Jabber logs and/or listen to the audio archive of the meeting for complete records on the commentary made during presentation.