Current Meeting Report
2.2.12 Mobile Networks (monet) Bof
Current Meeting Report
MONET (Mobile Networks) BOF
Thursday 21st March 13:00
Chaired by Hesham Soliman and Thierry Ernst.
A word from the AD (Erik Nordmark): This BOF came as a result of discussions in the Mobile IP WG and it was deemed cleaner to take this work out of the already busy Mobile IP WG. So it is useful to consider this as a Mobile IP spin-off.
1) Terminology discussion - T. Ernst
LANs and PANs becoming networks which are mobile
Permanently connected to the Internet
Discussions started at pre-bof meeting at IETF52 in SLC
Purpose: defining architectural components and scope
MONET could be one or more subnets (mobile as a unit)
Connected to Internet via 1 or more Mobile Routers (MRs)
MONET MR (Mobile Router) changes its point of attachment
Useful terms for discussion:
MR: Mobile Router
MNN: Mobile Network Node (= set of MR, LFN, LMN, VMN)
LFN: Local Fixed Node
LMN: Local Mobile Node
VMN: Visiting Mobile Node
CN: Correspondent Node
Nested mobility (different levels): "Root" MONET and "Leaf" MONET
TLMR: Top-Revel Mobile Router - MR of the "Root" MONET
Multi-homing: multiple MRs connecting to Internet or one MR connected to multiple upstream networks
No use of MONET as transit network for hosts on internet.
Some concerns that all this terminology is not needed
Answer: this terminology is needed for the purpose of determining the problems and limiting the scope.
2) Problem Statement and scope - H. Soliman
One difference between MONET and MANET: Routes between MR and Internet are fairly stable. MONET has a different scope even though MONETs and MANETs may be combined.
- How do you join a MONET? Access control?
- VMNs are different from LFNs in how to route packets to them from outside.
- Where does the MONET address space come from? (visited network or home network)
- Authentication and Authorization: what credentials are needed? Does the upstream ISP see the MONET as a whole or as individual MNNs?
- IPv6 only or IPv4/IPv6? IPv6 seems more attractive. Some IPv4 MR products are already out.
3) Public safety applications for MONETs - J. Boot
Cells for public safety are very large (80miles). The network is therefore fairly stable, not a great deal of mobility. There is also a peer-to-peer mode as last resort and the possibility for hosts to talk through e.g. the safety vehicles (moveable infrastructure). International project ongoing: MESA.
Some of the interesting safety applications of MONETs:
- Vehicles as MRs
- MESA firefighter (with sensors on him)
- Nested MONET - Firefighters as MONETs are nested into vehicles as TLMRs.
- Fixed network (MR, MNNs owned by single entity)
- Fixed network (MR, MNNs owned by different entities)
4) Common requirements - T. Ernst
InternetCAR: MONETs in cars (a Working Group in the WIDE Project - Japan)
Different MONET elements: Multimedia network (audio), body network (temperature, seats), control network (engine)
Multi-homed since there can be a phone or WLAN to communicate externally to the InternetCAR.
These elements are essentially: LFN, LMN, VMH (hosts), VMR
Need Fast Handoff as car moves, Low overhead (efficient bandwidth usage)
- Mobility management transparency for LFNs (which have low resource capabilities)
- operational transparency for users
Common Requirements arising from this MONET application:
MONET of any size
Any solution must at least meet the following requirements.
Basic requirements for permanent connectivity:
- no changes to CN
- secure signalling
- compatibility with existing protocols (e.g. multicast)
- do not duplicate work in other WGs
- Route Optimization
- mobility transparency
5) Mobile Networks Scenarios, scope, requirements - H.Y. Lach
- PAN connected to Internet
- In-car embedded networks
- WLAN network deployed in train for passenger access
- Mobile Emergency and Safety Applications (MESA)
Objective: Maintain IP connectivity for MNNs as the MONET is moving.
- At least IPv6
- Transparent to layers above IP
- Minimise changes & maximise co-existence with other interacting protocols
6) MONET problem scope & requirements - T.J. Kniveton
- Host mobility
- administration of network
- address assignment
- network architectures
- service discovery solutions
- complicated abstract architectures
Primary goal is to allow MNNs to remain connected and continuously reachable. Need to study security.
- IPv6 as basis
- Mobile IPv6 is the starting point
- Route Optimisation desirable but not a primary requirement
- support nesting
- no transit networks
Questions & comments:
- Is MANET a special case of MONET or the other way round?
- MANET does not allow movement outside a routing domain (AS)
- Security: MANET is simpler but need to understand MONET trust model
- MONET respects routing hierarchy, MANET does not
7) MONET security issues - J. Kempf
First need to focus on the underlying trust model
- who owns the MONET?
- who trusts whom?
- what authority is given to the MR and the fixed network?
Trust boundaries are important.
- 2 problems exist: first create trust in MONET, second solve the mobility security. The second problem can use an infrastructureless approach.
- VMNs in MONET should not care if it is a MONET or not, they just join the network
- If the joining VMR injects routing info you need proper trust. But it may be done simply (i.e. Mobile IP) since injecting non-topologically-correct routes is not scaleable (routing table growth) for the case in which the MONET and upstream AR address spaces are different.
8) Open Discussion, Open Issues
- IPv6 only?
- Multi-link MONET. Single aggregated prefix or more?
- Direct VMN-VMN communication? (even if MONET is disconnected)
- MANET is a very specific case of MONET?
- Nested Mobility
- Security and Trust
- Do not restrict trust relationships & business models
- Need to identify non-goals of this work
- Different comments on MANET vs MONET, some claiming MONET is a special case of MANET, others saying it is different but a MANET can be part of a MONET.
- IPv6 vs IPv4: tens of hand raised to work on IPv6; less than ten for IPv4
- Majority felt it would be useful to charter a WG in this problem area.
- Few commented that this work could be done in Mobile IP WG. Erik Nordmark commented that this was already discussed with Mobile IP WG chairs, that WG is already stretched with current work items. The ADs are ensuring group coordination.
Public Safety applications for Mobile Networks
MONET Security Issues
Mobile Networks Scenarios, Scope and Requirements
MONET: Problem statement and scope
MONET Problem Scope and Requirements