Subject: RE: [nemo] Draft proposal for prefix delegation in NEMO

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:34:49 +0100

Hi Guillaume:

Could you please refine a bit on the use case part?

My quick reading of this draft places it in a nested NEMO configuration
as a MANET bootstrap solution. 

Pascal

| -----Original Message-----
| From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
| Chelius Guillaume
| Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:26 AM
| To: [email-masked]
| Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
| Subject: [nemo] Draft proposal for prefix delegation in NEMO
| 
| Hi folks,
| 
| We submitted a draft about prefix delegation for NEMO.
| This draft proposes a distributed mechanism for prefix
autoconfiguration
| in an
| IPv6 network.
|
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chelius-nemo-router-autoconf-
| 00.txt
| 
| Contrarily to classical prefix delegation mechanisms such as a DHCP
| adaptation,
| the proposed protocol is completely distributed and does not rely on
any
| centralized server. It uses a link-state approach to detect auto-
| configured
| prefixes collisions as well as to perform collision avoidance while
| attributing
| a prefix to a new link.
| 
| Your comments are welcome.
| 
| Best regards,
| Guillaume Chelius.
| ----------------------------
| ARES Project, INRIA
| web: http://ares.insa-lyon.fr/~gchelius
| mail: [email-masked]
| phone: (+33) 472 436 182
| fax: (+33) 472 436 227

---

From: Guillaume Chelius <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:20:51 +0100

Hi Pascal,

Sorry for the delay.

The protocol presented in this draft is usefull whenever  a network or 
some links are bootstrapped without network administration information 
or ability. A case of application is indeed to allow the bootstrap of a 
nested NEMO config.

Guillaume.

> | Your comments are welcome.
Guillaume Chelius.
----------------------------
ARES Project, INRIA
web: http://ares.insa-lyon.fr/~gchelius
mail: [email-masked]
phone: (+33) 472 436 182
fax: (+33) 472 436 227

---

From: "Eun Kyoung PAIK" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:10:18 +0900

Hi Guillaume,

How about revising our draft based on Pascal's comment and submitting
-01.txt by Feb. 21 ?

Regards,
Eun Kyoung

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guillaume Chelius [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 6:21 PM
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nemo] Draft proposal for prefix delegation in NEMO
> 
> Hi Pascal,
> 
> Sorry for the delay.
>

---

From: "Eun Kyoung PAIK" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:33:11 +0900

Hi Guillaume, 

We may submit our draft following BOF, too.

http://ietf.org/ietf/05mar/autoconf.txt

Regards,
Eun Kyoung

---

From: Shubhranshu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:52:09 +0900

Hello Eun Kyoung,

I would like to know how you are relating your draft with autoconf ?

A quick reading of the draft suggests that it can be related with
the ad hoc autoconf scenario where manet is connected to the Internet via
gateway. In this case gateway can be ER. However, considering the definition
"a dedicated router is elected on each * link* " , DR does not make sense
 and it can be very costly in terms of control packet overhead.

Regards,
Shubhranshu

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eun Kyoung PAIK" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Guillaume Chelius'" <[email-masked]>; "'Pascal Thubert (pthubert)'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 5:33 PM
Subject: RE: [nemo] Draft proposal for prefix delegation in NEMO

Hi Guillaume,

Regards,
Eun Kyoung

---

From: Guillaume Chelius <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:49:24 +0100

Hello TJ,

I think there was some misunderstanding about the draft. It is not an 
ad hoc network auto-configuration protocol. I tried to make it clear in 
my last post and I hope I succeed.  The draft is a proposal to perform 
prefix delegation in a distributed way.

Regards,
Guillaume Chelius.

Le 22 févr. 05, à 02:05, T.J.Kniveton a écrit :

> For those of you working on ad-hoc network {auto}configuration 
> protocols, I am glad to see this work happening. Keep in mind, 
> however, that NEMO does not deal with ad-hoc networks, which should 
> hopefully be orthagonal with the NEMO solution space. So we will not 
> be considering ad-hoc protocols or configuration in NEMO as the 
> charter currently stands.
>
> -TJ
>
>

---

From: "T.J.Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:05:21 -0800

For those of you working on ad-hoc network {auto}configuration 
protocols, I am glad to see this work happening. Keep in mind, however, 
that NEMO does not deal with ad-hoc networks, which should hopefully be 
orthagonal with the NEMO solution space. So we will not be considering 
ad-hoc protocols or configuration in NEMO as the charter currently 
stands.

-TJ

---

From: Guillaume Chelius <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:45:18 +0100

Hello Shubhranshu,

Our draft is not related with MANet autoconf. MANet autoconf aims at  
providing unicast addresses to MANet nodes which is not the case in our  
draft. Our goal is to number links, in other words to attribute Subnet  
IDs to links,  in a  classical network (e.g. SOHO) where some  
dynamicity can occur. It is an alternate and distributed proposal to  
classical prefix delegation mechanisms.

Consider a network which is bootstrapped or modified (addiction of new  
links or addition of some mobile networks). Our protocol allows the  
automatic attribution of subnet ids for the new links with the  
insurance that there will be no collisions with already attributed  
subnet ids. The protocol will also resolve prefix collisions when two  
auto-configured networks merge. This protocol is useful as soon as an  
IPv6 network is not managed by a human administrator which could do all  
the numbering stuff: for example, at home,  you can not ask a regular  
person to have IPv6 skills in order to administrate its personnal  
network. Another application is for networks where there are some  
dynamicity and which dynamicity is a regular behavior (temporal merging  
of networks or temporal creation of links) like NEMOs and where you can  
not ask an administrator to permanentlly watch the network in order to  
respond to events.

In a classical environment (as opposed to MANet), election of a  
dedicated router is not a costly operation. It is done for example by  
the OSPF protocol which elects a DR on each network link. Keep in mind  
that we are considering classical networks such as SOHO and not highly  
dynamic MANets.

Best regards,
Guillaume Chelius.

Le 21 févr. 05, à 12:52, Shubhranshu a écrit :

> To: "'Guillaume Chelius'" <[email-masked]>; "'Pascal  
> Thubert (pthubert)'" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:31:03 +0900

Hi TJ and All

Pascal, Greg and I launched a MANEMO maillist to discuss the integration
of MANET and NEMO.

if you are interested in, please visit here.
http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/manemo

regards,
ryuji