Current Meeting Report

2.3.11 NEtwork MObility(nemo) Bof

Current Meeting Report

IETF 54, NEMO BOF, 2002-07-15, 13:00


Thanks to Marco Molteni and Tony Johansson for taking the minutes. Merged by the chairs.

0. Introduction and agenda bashing (Hesham Solimam & Thierry Ernst)

No comments.

1. Esham Soliman: charter presentation.
Current draft charter available at

Q: <Thomas Narten>: Seen from the network, does the Mobile Router look like a normal host?
A: <Hesham Soliman>: Yes.

Q: <Unknown>: Will the WG be ipv6 only or ipv4 also?
A: It will be decided today.
Q: <C. Huitema>: Not interested in v4 RO.
Q: <Hesham Soliman>: How many people interested in v4? How many in v6?
A: Hand count seemed to show the vast majority interested only in v6, but somebody interested in v4 also.
Q: IPv4 support is needed for transition time. What is your opinion about it?
A: <Pascal Thubert>: We will also consider NGTRANS issues (eg v6 connectivity in a v4 cloud).
Q: <Gopal>: Maybe we should consider basic support for IPv4, and basic and advanced support for IPv6.
A: <TJ Kniveton>: On the NEMO mailing list there is not a lot of people interested in v4.
Q: <Erik Nordmark>: People who want v4 support should make a proposal for v4.
A: A few people seems to be willing to volunteer for the needed work for basic IPv4, so basic IPv4 will also be included.
Q: RO for Both v6 and v4?
A: Hand count seemed to show consensus for only v6 RO.
R: Basic support for IPv4 will be added to the charter.

Q: <Unknown>: The WG should consider handling IPsec between MNs, for example IKE quick mode.
A: <Esham Soliman>: The requirements (Ed: say or should say?) that NEMO must be transparent to IPsec.

Q: <Unknown>: When will the WG consider the case of a MN moving in a NEMO?
A: Transparent mobility is considered in the charter; also RO will be involved.

A: <TJ Kniveton>: A MN that is not NEMO-aware should behave as a plain MIPv6 MN.

Q: <Unknown>: Will the WG consider the case of movement between different administrative domains?
A: <Esham Soliman>: For the moment we don't see special problems for this; it might involve PANA but we don't make distinctions between domains.

Q: <Erik Nordmark>: Seen from the charter presentation and the goals & milestones presentation, do we think that a working group should be started?
A: Hand count seemed to show consensus for a YES. Nobody says no.

2. Thierry Ernst:
Terminology Update.

Q: <Steve Deering>: Nesting networks should be included.
A: <Thierry Ernst>: Yes and this is already included in the current terminology and requirement drafts.

3. TJ Kniveton and Pascal Thubert:
Summary of discussion on the ML about Issues/Requirements

Part by TJ Kniveton:

No questions.

Part by Pascal Thubert:

Q: <Esham Soliman>: Pascal could you please explain better RO (Route Optimization)? Does everyone agree on RO as described?
A: <Pascal Thubert>: explains better. Nobody comments on this.

Part by TJ Kniveton: Conclusions. (same slides as before)

Q: <Steve Deering>: In basic case, let's say I have a PAN, I get into my car, my car gets into a ferry. Make sure that the ferry doesn't go to the Internet thru my PAN!

A: <TJ Kniveton>: Good point, we will assure this; AAA for NEMO is a work item.

4. General discussion and opinions on moving forward

Q: <Esham Soliman>: Any new ideas/issues for discussion?
A: <Unknown>: We are happy to write a v4 draft. Will the WG consider it?
Q: <Esham Soliman>: You should write it and sent it to the NEMO mailing list for discussion.


NEtwork MObility (NEMO) charter
NEMO: Terminology Update
NEMO Requirements and Mailing List Discussions/Conclusions