Subject: [nemo] Comments on RO Taxonomy draft

From: Masafumi Watari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:26:45 +0900 (JST)

Hi all,

It seems to me that many proposals on route optimization in nested
NEMO are focused in the case where the correspondent nodes is located
at the infrastructure.  For example, route optimization with MIP6
correspondent nodes, correspondent routers, or IPv6 nodes with
forwarding to the home agent from the root MR.  I think this is also
true for the taxonomy draft.

However, I believe that there are other cases which we should consider
to provide a full route optimization.  Precisely, the cases where the
correspondent node is also behind a nested NEMO, if its within the
scope of the WG.

For example, when a node is behind another nested NEMO, the discovery
becomes much more complex, since the you must also discover the tree
of the other nest.  Furthermore if the solution is to use tunneling or
routing headers for each MR, this overhead become severe.

Below are the cases that are in my mind for now.

Case 1: Same MR, same nested NEMO
Two communicating nodes are located behind the same mobile router, and
behind the same nested NEMO.

Case 2: Different MR, but same nested NEMO.
Two communicating nodes are located behind a different mobile router,
but each mobile router is attached behind the same nested NEMO.

Case 3: Different nested NEMO.
Two communicating nodes are located behind a different nested NEMO.

Furtheremore, for each case, we might need to consider the case where
the two nodes are both LFNs, both VMNs, or a LFN and a VMN. If
optimization involves VMN, this could be complex even in case 1.

Any comments?

Best regards,
watari