Subject: [nemo] NEMO Basic Support: About terminology

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:50:09 +0900

Dear all,

draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support-pre01.txt

Mobile Network Prefix

              The IPv6 prefix advertised in the Mobile Network
              by one or more Mobile Routers.  There could be multiple
              prefixes in the Mobile Network.

This is already defined in the terminology drafts (seamoby and NEMO):

  draft-ietf-seamoby-mobility-terminology-04.txt

     Mobile Network Prefix

       A bit string that consists of some number of initial bits of an
       IP address which identifies the entire mobile network within the
       Internet topology. All nodes in a mobile network necessarily have
       an address named after this prefix.

  draft-ietf-neno-terminology-00.txt

     MNP
      An acronym for Mobile Network Prefix (defined in [Mobility])

So, I think it's useless to define it here again in basic-support.

Besides this, I would also like to propose to add a term to distinguish
Mobile IPv6 BU and NEMO BU: PBU for "Prefix Binding Update". At some
point in time, it will allow to avoid confusion between the 2 protocols.

Thierry

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:50:09 +0900

Dear all,

Mobile Network Prefix

     Mobile Network Prefix

     MNP

Thierry

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:59:24 -0700

I have cc'ed Seamoby list.

> So, I think it's useless to define it here again in basic-support.

that was deliberately added. I didnt want a normative
reference to a draft which is not controlled by this
WG. what is the status of this draft in the Seamoby
WG?

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:59:24 -0700

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:01:16 -0700

> point in time, it will allow to avoid confusion between the 2 protocols.

in the implicit mode, the Binding Update does not contain
any prefix information. also when a routing protocol is
being run over the MR-HA tunnel, there is no prefix 
information in the Binding Update. so I am not sure it is
correct to call the NEMO BU, Prefix Binding Update.

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:01:16 -0700

Vijay

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:08:14 -0700

The draft is currently with the IESG, recommended to be published as
Informational. According to Draft Tracker, the state is AD Evaluation.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thierry Ernst" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "nemo" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:59 AM
Subject: [Seamoby] Re: [nemo] NEMO Basic Support: About terminology

> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:08:14 -0700

jak

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:20:04 -0700

I should have checked the ID tracker before sending the
mail. sorry.

> Informational. According to Draft Tracker, the state is AD Evaluation.

great. that means we can have a reference to this draft
in the NEMO drafts.

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:20:04 -0700

Vijay

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:12:01 +0900

Hi Vijay,

> correct to call the NEMO BU, Prefix Binding Update.

Wether is it implicit or explicit, it's a BU to instruct the HA to
redirect packets for an entire BU, so it could be called PBU. But if you
don't like PBU, I still recommend we find a term to distinguish
MIPv6 BU from NEMO BU (NBU ?).

Thierry.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:12:01 +0900

Hi Vijay,

Thierry.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:35:29 -0700

> MIPv6 BU from NEMO BU (NBU ?).

why? since we are not defining a new Mobility Message type
value for the Nemo BU, why would you want two different 
names for the same Mobility Header message?

there is the 'R' flag in the BU to distinguish Nemo BU.

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:35:29 -0700

Vijay

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:51:31 +0900

> there is the 'R' flag in the BU to distinguish Nemo BU.

To avoid the confusion about what we are speaking about when we say "BU"
[when will be talking about mobility management for the VMN and mobility
management for the MR. Also, when the MR is acting as a host vs as a
router]. It's better to define the term now so that people get the
habbit to use it.

Thierry

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:51:31 +0900

Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:49:21 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>>>> in the implicit mode, the Binding Update does not contain any 
>>>> prefix information. also when a routing protocol is being run 
>>>> over the MR-HA tunnel, there is no prefix information in the 
>>>> Binding Update. so I am not sure it is correct to call the NEMO
>>>>  BU, Prefix Binding Update.
>>> 
>>> Wether is it implicit or explicit, it's a BU to instruct the HA 
>>> to redirect packets for an entire BU, so it could be called PBU.
>>>  But if you don't like PBU, I still recommend we find a term to 
>>> distinguish MIPv6 BU from NEMO BU (NBU ?).
>> 
>> why? since we are not defining a new Mobility Message type value 
>> for the Nemo BU, why would you want two different names for the 
>> same Mobility Header message?
>> 
> To avoid the confusion about what we are speaking about when we say 
> "BU" [when will be talking about mobility management for the VMN and
>  mobility management for the MR. Also, when the MR is acting as a
> host vs as a router]. It's better to define the term now so that
> people get the habbit to use it.

If someone absolutely needs to distinguish a NEMO BU from a non-NEMO BU
then I would suggest R-BU (instead of PBU) simply because PBU does not
cover implicit mode, it explicitely covers explicit modes, and R-BU
covers all three modes.

Alternatively, we can talk about: IBU (implicit mode BU), ENBU (explicit
network BU) or EPLBU (explicit prefix length BU). Or EBU (explicit BU)
that covers both ENBU and EPLBU...

Alex
GBU

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:49:21 +0200

Alex
GBU

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:25:04 -0700

I prefer to continue with the term Binding Update. I 
dont see the need to call it by a different name, 
especially when it is the same Mobility Header message 
type. and I dont see anybody confused currently :)

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:25:04 -0700

Vijay

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:36:09 +0900

Dear Vijay,

> type. and I dont see anybody confused currently :)

The content is not the same.

The aim of making the distinction is to avoid forthcoming confusion. It
will be much harder to expect people making good use of terms if we
don't introduce it today. The cost to introduce the term today is 0,
while the benefit, in terms of clarity, could be high. 

Besides this, I've already seen some confusions in RO discussion,
although not on this mailing list. 

So, please use a different term. R-BU, as suggested by Alex seems good
to me.

Thierry

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:36:09 +0900

Dear Vijay,

Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:04:28 +0200

> although not on this mailing list. 

On which list have you seen RO discussions (confusion included)?  I'm 
going to subscribe.

Alex
GBU

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:04:28 +0200

Alex
GBU