#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ # Network Mobility (NEMO) Working Group Meeting Minutes # 9 November 2006, 67th IETF Meeting San Diego # IETF 20th Anniversary # http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nemo-charter.html # WG Chairs: Thierry Ernst , T.J. Kniveton # # All NEMO WG related documents and meeting material available on # http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/ # # Minutes by Marcelo Bagnulo, Alexandru Petrescu, and T.J. Kniveton # #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1. Welcome, agenda bashing ....................................... 05 mins Chairs 2. WG documents status ........................................... 10 mins Chairs http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo/ Terminology draft New version 6, still not posted, available on additional NEMO page Not many differences, mainly editorial changes in order to make the terminology consistent with home net models draft, Updated terminology: split nemo, nemo RO and pinball routing. All the issues closed in the next version. Requirements draft New version 6, still not available, available on additional web page. Minor modifications, no comments from WGLC. It will be sent to the ADs shortly Home network models draft Still in queue because of dependency with terminology draft Nemo MIB Not clear whether it is ready for wglc or not Still waiting for more feedback Nemo RO problem statement New version Nemo Multihoming Only one comment in working group last call Ready for IESG, will be sent to AD shortly Prefix delegation draft Initially 2 drafts Need more feedback Vijay Devarapalli: DHCP-based draft has more than one year, so it can be send to the iesg. No modifications were introduced in the last version, only to keep it alive. TJ: Other document needs additional discussion with other authors. Vijay: Wasn't consensous on keep them separated? Jari Arkko: Do the 2 draft do the same thing or have different functionality? TJ: Different fucntionality provided by the non-DHCP draft; they are alternative solutions, the 2nd draft implements PD only with nemo messages, and does not require DHCPv6. Jari: doesn't sound like a good reason. It seems more WG lack consensous. If the WG cannot reach consensuos, send both of them to the AD and the AD will evaluate if 2 docs are needed. The AD can return this to the wg so they can produce a single doc. TJ: It is not clear of there will be a next version of the second draft Jari: Please do only one draft thing [Update by TJ: we have submitted a new version of the NEMO PD draft and will discuss with Jari how to proceed.] IPv4 NEMO basic support This document has been sent to the MIPv4 working group and will go through working group last call there. DSMIP6 Joint doc with mip6 Discussed in the mip6 working group 3. Final version of new charter .................................. 15 mins Chairs Current version of new charter http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/charter2_5.txt Wrap up of rechartering discussion Multihoming item: Chan-Wah Ng: There was originally an ID on this work (2 years ago) but later on we decided to focus on the problem statement part of the document. The other ID expired. Jari: Clarifying question: Is this (the appendix which grew from the draft) a continuation of the problem statement or is it a solution? CW: There are issues identified in the problem statement, specifically the problem when multiple MR; the appendix contains a solution for this particular problem Jari: It seems reasonable, but we need to keep a focused charter Nicolas Montavont: monami6 is working in multihoming issue, maybe monami6 is the place to work on this Vijay: the work done in the multihoming problem statement draft and there were issues identified and a chart showing in which WG the work needs to be done. In particular, the n,n,n scenario was for NEMO to work on this Marcelo: In this n,n,n scenario what you have is multihoming prefixes, multiple paths from Internet to different ISPs. It's way out of scope of monami6this doesn't fit in monami scope TJ: Yes, the problem is understood, but what is the deployment scenario for this? Jari: I understand the classification has been done, monami6 has certain reqs, they can't do just about anything. Nevertheless, IETF WG have clear charter has to have clear backed by real world. If not, should just focus on the two cases Vijay: the NEMO basic protocol doesn't work on this case; this is more about the NEMO base protocol. Thierry: Automotive industry do have a scenario where it requires support for this TJ: It then may be part of the automotive work 4. Aviation Industry Requirements & Issues ....................... 20 mins Terry Davis & William Ivancic 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 Terry Davis gave an overview of the standards organizations involved with aeronautical networks. Problem describes how airplane/ships are set up with completely different networks for traffic control, airline operations, and passenger communication/ entertainment, and there are up to 10 ISPs per a plane's 48 hours. To plug this in on the other end of the world, we don't currently have a way to "dock" with the Internet. Will Ivancic described the routing issues. The plane is a "Mobile RD" RD = routing domain. (OSI IDRP routing) BGP injection might work for traffic control but not for entertainment. Vijay: Is there a security concern having the different NEMO instances in the same binding cache? Will: Yes.. We are working with security people to convince everybody to do secure networking. TJ: Do you think we can come with a solution that will be accepted by the various regulatory entities, where we don't need a separate radio for each network, and that is not multiplexed? Ivanic: They rely on us for technical issues, we need to convince ourselves and then carry it to a political level. Marcelo: how many prefixes you need to inject to the DFZ? One per NEMO? Marshal: Right now there are 3 prefixes per plane TJ: Right now there are 51 radios on the plane with low bandwidth- what are your plans to increase the BW? Will: Different radios for different parts of the path, checking for new technologies. For instance, 802.16 when on the ground. We experimented with EvDO, which may be useable. Vijay: Process question, is the NEMO WG mailing list or the new list? Terry: We work on the reqs with the other organizations. We may move some of this to NEMO. 5. Personal Mobile Router ........................................ 05 mins Vijay Devarapalli This talk will cove a use case for route optimization. No draft. Hesham: I don't think the last bullet applies to the cell phone as a MR, my cell is owned and configured by me Vijay: They push credentials to your cell Hesham; Are you talking about network configuation? Vijay: credentials Hecham: credentials for RO? (discussion regarding this) [Note: there was ongoing discussion of the PMR scenario and whether this should be added to the charter. Please see the mailing list archives post-meeting for more information on this. -TJ] 6. Conclusions ................................................... 05 mins