Subject: [nemo] Visiting Nodes

From: Eranga Perera <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:01:57 +1100 (EST)

Hi All,
Would someone be able to clarify why is it that all visiting nodes to a
mobile network are assumed to be mobile nodes?
More precisely how about the nodes that belong to another network (not
mobile network) but has no mobility capabilities?
(scenario - commuter with a PDA with no mobility capabilities obtain
connectivity via a MR deployed on a bus)

Thankx in advance,
Eranga

---

From: "Muhammad Ali Malik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:03:32 +1100

Hi

Since they r moving with mobile network, therefore they r mobile. In fact
they r moving transparently with mobile network. For MN, the mobility is
static.

=Muhammad

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Eranga
Perera
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 5:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nemo] Visiting Nodes

Hi All,

Thankx in advance,
Eranga

---

From: "Muhammad Ali Malik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:03:32 +1100

Hi

=Muhammad

-----Original Message-----

Hi All,

Thankx in advance,
Eranga

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:30:18 +0100

Hi Eranga,

	All MNNs (Mobile Network Nodes) move with the mobile network, but not
all of them are "mobile nodes" (i.e. have MIPv6 support and can move
topologically with respect to the MR). Local Fixed Nodes (LFNs) are
nodes that belong to the mobile network and which do not move with
respect to the MR (like the node you pointed in your example). In the
other hand, there are nodes with mobility capabilities: Visiting Mobile
Nodes (VMNs) and Local Mobile Nodes (LMNs). Perhaps the term "visiting"
is not very clear and could lead to confusion, but IMHO it does not mean
that other nodes-with no mobility capabilities-could not visit a mobile
network (i.e. a node with portability-DHCPv6 support).

	Best regards,

	Carlos J.

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano - http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
GPG FP: 1880 80D3 8004 25C7 6537  8E02 252A D295 9CFF DEAF

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:30:18 +0100

Hi Eranga,

	Best regards,

	Carlos J.

---

From: María Calderón <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:32:37 +0100

Hi Eranga,
In my understanding in the scenario you propose the PDA is not a
visiting node to the mobile network on the bus. I guess the PDA is
getting dinamically an IP address by DHCP and it is getting access to
Internet via the MR deployed on the bus. But in this scenario the PDA
with no mobility capabilities hasn't a Home Agent that receives packets
send to the HoA_PDA, and forwards them to the CoA_PDA. Thus the PDA
after obtaining connectivity via the MR will be a Local Fixed Node of
the mobile network.

Best regards
Maria
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de Eranga
Perera
Enviado el: jueves, 26 de febrero de 2004 7:02
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: [nemo] Visiting Nodes

Hi All,
Would someone be able to clarify why is it that all visiting nodes to a
mobile network are assumed to be mobile nodes? More precisely how about
the nodes that belong to another network (not mobile network) but has no
mobility capabilities? (scenario - commuter with a PDA with no mobility
capabilities obtain connectivity via a MR deployed on a bus)

Thankx in advance,
Eranga

---

From: María Calderón <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:32:37 +0100

Hi Eranga,

Best regards
Maria
-----Mensaje original-----

Hi All,

Thankx in advance,
Eranga

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:28:32 +0100

> connectivity via a MR deployed on a bus)

If the node entering the train has no mobility capabilities (i.e. no 
Mobile IPv6 MN code) then it will loose all ongoing connections once it 
obtains a new address inside the train.  This is not necessarily meaning 
that its new connections will not work, it is just that ongoing 
applications will have to be restarted; for some applications this is 
probably not even noticeable, for others it is bad enough.

However, since in NEMO the Mobile IPv6 protocol is used, it is natural 
to assume that the VMN's do use Mobile IPv6, and it is also natural to 
look at the Mobile IPv6 problems that might (or might not occur) when 
that node enters a train.

If a node not using Mobile IPv6 enters a train moving network, then 
problems related to DHCPv6, or other means of acquiring a new address 
(without caring about continuing ongoing applications), or routing, 
maybe could be treated in other places; this is to say that the moving 
network looks to the respective node as any other fixed network, no 
difference...

Otherwise, what do you think are the problems of a non-Mobile IPv6 node 
jumping from a bus to a train?

My oppinion,

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:28:32 +0100

My oppinion,

Alex

---

From: Eranga Perera <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:03:21 +1100 (EST)

Hi Carlos,
Thanks for the reply. By visiting I mean nodes which belong to another
network as opposed to local nodes. If we agree that there could be nodes
that are not MIPv6 capable and also belongs to another network then
shouldn't we witihn the NEMO group give emphasis to such nodes too. I
believe that there is alot to do in order to enable mobility for such
nodes in a NEMO setting. What do you think?

Regrds,
Eranga

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:02:01 +0100

Hi Eranga,

> nodes in a NEMO setting. What do you think?

	I agree with Alexandru that there is no difference, from the NEMO point
of view, between a LFN belonging to the mobile network and other node
belonging to a different network, that attaches to the mobile network.
This node, due to its lack of mobility support can not preserve previous
established communications (transparent mobility support), but by using
mechanisms like DHCPv6 or IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration, it is able
to gain connectivity in the new location at the visited mobile network
(portability). Once this node is attached to the mobile network, it is
treated like a LFN from the point of view of NEMO support mechanisms and
it will preserve communications despite possible mobile network
movements.

	On the other hand, IMHO it is very interesting the topic of practical
usage scenarios in which network mobility could be involved. I mean,
what is more likely to occur, nodes with ongoing communications that
enters in a train or nodes that enter in a train and start browsing the
Internet, for example?

	Best regards,

	Carlos J.

> Regrds,
> Eranga
> 
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Carlos [ISO-8859-1] Jess Bernardos Cano wrote:
> 
> > Hi Eranga,
> >
> > El jue, 26-02-2004 a las 07:01, Eranga Perera escribi:
> > > Hi All,
> > Carlos Jess Bernardos Cano - http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:02:01 +0100

Hi Eranga,

	Best regards,

	Carlos J.

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:49:11 +0800

Hello all,

One way to look at it is to restrict our interpretation of the terms
used in the layer we are working on (i.e. IP: layer 3).

With that, then "visiting" would implies the concept of 'Home network"
and "foreign network".  Thus it implicitly carry the concept of mobility
protocols (MIPv4, MIPv6).  The term "Local" would then refer to a node
that is in its home domain, which may or may not use/know mobility
protocols.

Also, the term "Mobile node" implies a node that uses mobility protocols
(MIPv4, MIPv6).  The term "fixed node" would then refer to a node that
does not use mobility protocols (though it may accept BU, send BA,
implements BCE, etc).

So, we say a node is "visiting" when its in a foreign domain, and a node
is "local" when its in the home domain.  Thus there can be no such thing
as a Visiting fixed node.  

In the eyes of IP, the PDA example would be a LFN, though in the eyes of
the user it is definitely mobile, and in the eyes of the mobile router
owner, it is a visitor.

Does this makes sense?

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:49:11 +0800

Hello all,

Does this makes sense?

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: "S. Felix Wu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:11:51 -0800

Hi,

During our analysis of multi-homing and nested NEMO cases, we
have encountered a question, hopefully get some clarifications
from the NEMO working group:

	-- Can an HA itself be an MNN under the NEMO context?

Please see our attached PDF file for our preliminary analysis on
this issue. It seems to us that this can be allowed for MIPv6, but
should NOT be allowed for NEMO (otherwise, we might have a loop,
and the multi-homing issue might be more complex).

-Felix
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. S. (Shyhtsun) Felix Wu                           [email-masked]
Associate Professor                      http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~wu
Computer Science Department                     office: 1-530-754-7070
University of California at Davis               fax:    1-530-752-4767
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "S. Felix Wu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:11:51 -0800

Hi,

-Felix

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:43:17 +0900

I don't get why you would have a Parent HA advertising prefix X, and 
then a Mobile HA and MNN inside the top MR's prefix X... doesn't seem 
like a topologically correct arrangement of routers. The Mobile HA is 
under MR with prefix Y, so why is it advertising prefix X.

Think about the fixed case, would you have this arrangement?

Router
   | prefix X
   |
   |
Router
   | prefix Y
   |
   |
Router
   | prefix X
   |
   |
Fixed node with prefix X

it wouldn't make sense, right? It seems the scenario in the slide is 
just taking this case, and nesting it inside MRs.

On Feb 29, 2004, at 4:11 PM, S. Felix Wu wrote:

> <NEMO-HA-as-MNN.pdf>

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:43:17 +0900

Router
   | prefix X
   |
   |
Router
   | prefix Y
   |
   |
Router
   | prefix X
   |
   |
Fixed node with prefix X

---

From: "S. Felix Wu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:53:20 -0800

I was really thinking about the MR for prefix Y moving into
another network (prefix X) without knowing that one of its own
MNN is actually the HA for that network.

I agree that, for fixed topology/configuration, this doesn't
make sense. But, I am not sure about the "moving" case (plus
nested).
-Felix

---

From: "S. Felix Wu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:53:20 -0800

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:59:34 +0900

I still don't get it.. Why would there be HAs on two different links  
supporting the same prefix?? In the fixed case, it's analogous to two  
routers on different links, advertising the same global prefix.

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:59:34 +0900

---

From: "Eranga Perera" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:09:56 +1100

Hi Alex,
Thanks for the reply. I wish I had a solution for the security issues
but I don't. 

I was only trying to verify why we assume that all Visiting Nodes are
mobility aware. 
I guess gnerally everyone seems to go by the assumption that a node with
a "permanent IP address" that belongs to another network (not the prefix
of the mobile network)is MIP or MIPv6 enabled. If visiting nodes are all
MIP or MIPv6 enabled then I guess it is more or less a route
optimization issue as you have suggested. 

Best Regards,
Eranga

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:29 PM
To: Eranga Perera
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nemo] Visiting Nodes

Eranga Perera wrote:
> Hi All,
> Would someone be able to clarify why is it that all visiting nodes to 
> a mobile network are assumed to be mobile nodes? More precisely how 
> about the nodes that belong to another network (not mobile network) 
> but has no mobility capabilities? (scenario - commuter with a PDA with

> no mobility capabilities obtain connectivity via a MR deployed on a 
> bus)

My oppinion,

Alex

---

From: "Eranga Perera" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:09:56 +1100

Hi Alex,

Best Regards,
Eranga

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:29 PM
To: Eranga Perera
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nemo] Visiting Nodes

My oppinion,

Alex

---

From: "Eranga Perera" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:15:01 +1100

Hi Chan-Wah,
Basically you are saying that there won't be any node in a mobile
network with a permanent IP address which belongs to another network and
has no MIP or MIPv6 capabilities.
Have I understood you correctly?

Best Regrds,
Eranga

-----Original Message-----
From: Chan-Wah NG [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:49 PM
To: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
Cc: Eranga Perera; IETF NEMO WG
Subject: Re: [nemo] Visiting Nodes

Hello all,

Does this makes sense?

/rgds
/cwng

On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 16:30, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> other hand, there are nodes with mobility capabilities: Visiting 
> Mobile Nodes (VMNs) and Local Mobile Nodes (LMNs). Perhaps the term 
> "visiting" is not very clear and could lead to confusion, but IMHO it 
> does not mean that other nodes-with no mobility capabilities-could not

> visit a mobile network (i.e. a node with portability-DHCPv6 support).
> 
> 	Best regards,
> 
> 	Carlos J.
>

---

From: "Eranga Perera" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:15:01 +1100

Hi Chan-Wah,

Best Regrds,
Eranga

-----Original Message-----
From: Chan-Wah NG [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:49 PM
To: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
Cc: Eranga Perera; IETF NEMO WG
Subject: Re: [nemo] Visiting Nodes

Hello all,

Does this makes sense?

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 08:05:31 +0800

I would think so, else your permenant IP won't be topologically
compatible with the foriegn network, and it disrupt the routing fabric. 
You could of-course not use your permenant IP, but grab a temporrary IP
address via DHCP or autoconfiguration.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 08:05:31 +0800

/rgds
/cwng