Subject: [nemo] WG Review: Recharter of Network Mobility (nemo)

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:41:29 -0500

A modified charter has been submitted for the Network Mobility (nemo)
working group in the Internet Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made
any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for 
informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]).

+++

Network Mobility (nemo)
========================

Current Status: Active Working Group

Chair(s):
TJ Kniveton <[email-masked]>
Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Director(s):
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Technical Advisor(s):
Steven Bellovin <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nemo/index.html

Description of Working Group:

The NEMO Working Group is concerned with managing the mobility of an
entire network, which changes its point of attachment to the Internet
and thus its reachability in the network topology. The mobile network
includes one or more mobile routers (MRs) which connect the rest of
the mobile network to the global Internet.

For the purposes of this working group, a mobile network is a leaf
network; it does not carry transit traffic. Nonetheless, it could be
multihomed, either with a single MR that has multiple attachments to
the Internet, or by using multiple MRs that attach the mobile network
to the Internet.

For the basic NEMO support case, none of the nodes behind the MR need
be aware of the network's mobility; thus, the network's movement is
completely transparent to the nodes inside the mobile network. This
design consideration was made to accommodate nodes inside the network
that are not generally aware of mobility.

Basic network mobility support is described in RFC 3963. This RFC
contains NEMO Basic Support, which is a protocol based on Mobile IPv6
(RFC 3775, 3776) that enables network mobility in an IPv6 network.

The working group is tasked with continuing to evolve RFC 3963 to
correct errors and address deployment issues. In addition, the group
works in co-operation with the MIP6 WG to design a mechanism to
allow mixed IPv4/IPv6 networks to be used.

At this point, the working group is concerned with solving deployment
issues of NEMO, primarily relating to the identified needs of the
automotive and aviation communities. The group will gather requirements
from those builders and users, and then solve the route optimization
issues necessary for optimized deployments.

Among the deployments that have issues which may be solved by NEMO
Route Optimization feature(s), we have identified three cases that
have a likelihood of requirements gathering and an Optimization
solution. Those comprise the Automotive case, the Aviation case, and
the Personal Mobile Router (consumer electronics) case. The group will
explore these options to gather requirements and, if those
requirements match the capability of a NEMO RO solution space, proceed
with solving the open issues.

The WG will:

- Finish working group documents that are currently in process, and
submit for RFC. This includes prefix delegation protocol mechanisms,
a multihoming problem statement, and a MIB for NEMO Basic Support.

- Gather requirements for NEMO Route Optimization in deployment
scenarios:

(1) Automotive industry who are deploying NEMO for in-car
communication, entertainment, and data gathering, possible
control systems use, and communication to roadside devices.

(2) Airline and spacecraft community, who are deploying NEMO for
control systems, as well as Internet connectivity and
entertainment systems.

(3) Personal Mobile Routers, which are consumer devices that allow
the user to bring a NEMO network with the user while mobile, and
communicate with peer NEMO networks/MNNs.

After gathering the requirements for these types of deployments, the
working group will evaluate what type of route optimization needs to
be performed (if any), and formulate a solution to those problems.

If no requirements for those scenarios can be collected by the
deadline, it will be assumed that the work is premature, and that
type of deployment will be dropped from the list of use cases
currently addressed by NEMO.

In order to retain focus, the group needs to sequence the
solution work for Personal Mobile Routers and Automotive
industry. I.e., one solution needs to be completed before
another one can be adopted as a WG document.

The group will only consider airline and spacecraft solutions
that combine tunneling solutions for small movements with
either federated tunnel servers or slowly changing end host
prefixes.

The group will only consider personal mobile router solutions
that employ the router's association with an operator in order
to set up a secure optimized route with another router belonging
to the same operator.

The group will only consider automotive industry solutions
that allow MR-attached hosts to directly access the network
where MR has attached to.

The WG will not:

- consider routing issues inside the mobile network. Existing routing
protocols (including MANET protocols) can be used to solve these
problems.

- consider general route optimization, multihoming, or other problems
that are not related to the deployment and maintenance of NEMO
networks.

- consider or rely on the results of general routing architecture,
Internet architecture, or identifier-locator split issues that are
discussed in separate, long term efforts elsewhere in the IETF

- consider solutions that require changes from correspondent
nodes in the general Internet

The working group will endeavor to separate research issues, and refer
them to the IRTF as appropriate.

Goals and Milestones:

Feb 2007 Submit final doc(s) on Prefix Delegation for NEMO
Apr 2007 Submit final doc Multihoming Problem Statement
Apr 2007 Submit final doc on MIB for NEMO Basic Support

May 2007 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for
Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments
May 2007 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for
Automobile and Highway Deployments
May 2007 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization needs for
Personal Mobile Router

Jul 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to aircraft/spacecraft
problem
Jul 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to first remaining problem

Aug 2007 Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for
Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments
Aug 2007 Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for
Automobile and Highway Deployments
Aug 2007 Submit final doc on Route Optimization needs for
Personal Mobile Router

Aug 2007 Determine how to proceed (if appropriate) with one
or more route optimization solutions
Dec 2007 Submit final doc for solution to aircraft/spacecraft
problem
Dec 2007 Submit final doc for solution to first remaining problem
Dec 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to second remaining problem
Mar 2008 Submit final doc for solution to second remaining problem
Apr 2008 Shut down or recharter the WG to solve further
identified topics

---

From: "Davis, Terry L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:20:18 -0800

Chairs/ADs/IESG/NEMO

Thank you for considering the aviation industry needs in the NEMO
re-chartering.

Two comments:
1- For those of us working in aviation, multi-homing is not an option
but is a global aviation regulatory requirement imposed for the safety
of public air transportation.  Even if this is outside of NEMO's
charter, those of us in aviation will need to continue to work to find
solutions that support multi-homing.

2- I believe I understand what you are trying to say in the following
statement but it could be much more clearly stated.  "The group will
only consider airline and spacecraft solutions that combine tunneling
solutions for small movements with either federated tunnel servers or
slowly changing end host prefixes."

NEMO Chairs
If there is an agenda opportunity in the NEMO meeting in Prague, I could
provide a short presentation covering the general framework for aviation
communications within which we are incorporating IP communications to
help the working group in understanding our environment.

Terry L Davis, P.E

Aircraft Network and Security Architecture & Strategy
Engineering Core - Avionics
Boeing Commercial Airplanes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IESG Secretary [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:41 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; TJ Kniveton; Thierry Ernst
> Subject: [nemo] WG Review: Recharter of Network Mobility (nemo)
> 
> informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG
mailing
> list ([email-masked]).

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. \(GRC-RCN0\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:51:18 -0600

I will not be able to make Prague.  I will try and send the charter
draft with deadlines out to as many people who are related somehow to
the aviation industry and who have the authority or influence to get
some workers on this.  IMHO, the IETF is giving the aviation industry an
opportunity to participate and have some of their concerns addressed
(within the confines of the solutions benefiting more than just the
aviation industry).  I see this as an opportunity that may only come
once.  If the aviation industry does not take and active role, they will
likely be (for the most part) ignored  by the IETF in any future
endeavors.

Will

******************************
William D. Ivancic

> From: Davis, Terry L [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]; TJ Kniveton; Thierry Ernst; [email-masked]
> Cc: Mobile Platform Internet Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [nemo] WG Review: Recharter of Network Mobility (nemo) 
> 
> Chairs/ADs/IESG/NEMO
> 
> Thank you for considering the aviation industry needs in the 
> NEMO re-chartering.
> 
> Two comments:
> 1- For those of us working in aviation, multi-homing is not 
> an option but is a global aviation regulatory requirement 
> imposed for the safety of public air transportation.  Even if 
> this is outside of NEMO's charter, those of us in aviation 
> will need to continue to work to find solutions that support 
> multi-homing.
> 
> 2- I believe I understand what you are trying to say in the 
> following statement but it could be much more clearly stated. 
>  "The group will only consider airline and spacecraft 
> solutions that combine tunneling solutions for small 
> movements with either federated tunnel servers or slowly 
> changing end host prefixes."
> 
> NEMO Chairs
> If there is an agenda opportunity in the NEMO meeting in 
> Prague, I could provide a short presentation covering the 
> general framework for aviation communications within which we 
> are incorporating IP communications to help the working group 
> in understanding our environment.
> 
> 
> Terry L Davis, P.E
> 
> Engineering Core - Avionics Boeing Commercial Airplanes
> 
> 
> > works in co-operation with the MIP6 WG to design a 
> mechanism to allow 
> > mixed IPv4/IPv6 networks to be used.
> > 
> > submit for RFC. This includes prefix delegation protocol 
> mechanisms, a 
> > multihoming problem statement, and a MIB for NEMO Basic Support.
> > 
> > communication, entertainment, and data gathering, possible control 
> > systems use, and communication to roadside devices.
> > 
> > control systems, as well as Internet connectivity and entertainment 
> > systems.
> > 
> > (3) Personal Mobile Routers, which are consumer devices 
> that allow the 
> > user to bring a NEMO network with the user while mobile, and 
> > deadline, it will be assumed that the work is premature, 
> and that type 
> > of deployment will be dropped from the list of use cases currently 
> > addressed by NEMO.
> > 
> > In order to retain focus, the group needs to sequence the solution 
> > work for Personal Mobile Routers and Automotive industry. I.e., one 
> > solution needs to be completed before another one can be 
> adopted as a 
> > WG document.
> > 
> > The group will only consider airline and spacecraft solutions that 
> > combine tunneling solutions for small movements with either 
> federated 
> > tunnel servers or slowly changing end host prefixes.
> > 
> > The group will only consider personal mobile router solutions that 
> > employ the router's association with an operator in order 
> to set up a 
> > secure optimized route with another router belonging to the same 
> > operator.
> > 
> that allow 
> > MR-attached hosts to directly access the network where MR 
> has attached 
> > to.
> > 
> > The WG will not:
> > 
> > - consider solutions that require changes from 
> correspondent nodes in 
> > the general Internet
> > 
> > Feb 2007 Submit final doc(s) on Prefix Delegation for NEMO Apr 2007 
> > Submit final doc Multihoming Problem Statement Apr 2007 
> Submit final 
> > doc on MIB for NEMO Basic Support
> > 
> Aircraft and 
> > Spacecraft Deployments May 2007 Submit -00 draft on Route 
> Optimization 
> > Needs for Automobile and Highway Deployments May 2007 
> Submit -00 draft 
> > on Route Optimization needs for Personal Mobile Router
> > 
> > Jul 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to 
> aircraft/spacecraft problem 
> Aircraft and 
> > Spacecraft Deployments Aug 2007 Submit final doc on Route 
> Optimization 
> > Needs for Automobile and Highway Deployments Aug 2007 
> Submit final doc 
> > on Route Optimization needs for Personal Mobile Router
> > 
> > Aug 2007 Determine how to proceed (if appropriate) with one or more 
> > route optimization solutions Dec 2007 Submit final doc for 
> solution to 
> > aircraft/spacecraft problem Dec 2007 Submit final doc for 
> solution to 
> > first remaining problem Dec 2007 Submit -00 draft for solution to 
> > second remaining problem Mar 2008 Submit final doc for solution to 
> > second remaining problem Apr 2008 Shut down or recharter the WG to 
> > solve further identified topics
> 
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:29:44 +0200

> solutions that support multi-homing.
Sure. The objective is not to prevent you from doing that. You
will need many things beyond what NEMO alone provides. The
initial hope is that these other things either exist already or
are being developed by other WGs (such multihoming in
MONAMI6). If and when you realize that this is not the case,
lets talk about specific new work for that purpose in
the most relevant WG!
> slowly changing end host prefixes."

I am open to a better wording. The objective of the first round of edits
from
the IESG was (a) to set concrete limits to what the NEMO WG should not be
doing in order to prevent research-like exploration, approaches that are
known to take a long time, and approaches known to be harmful to the
Internet routing infrastructure if deployed in large scale. For instance,
rule out reliance on a long term architectural change or injection of
routes as the planes move around.

And (b) to set some guidance for the working group where it must fin
the solution, without exactly specifying the solution yet. This is where
the text that you referred above comes from. Solutions that apply
NEMO tunneling for small movements, for instance, do not introdue the
delays that you are worried in the airline industry. Can we combine this
with home agents working together (maybe a bit like in the HAHA
proposal) to reduce the delays for bigger movements? Or can we
use the gradual introduction/deprecation of new prefixes along
with tunneling of the less previous prefixes?

Jari

---

From: "Davis, Terry L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:28:28 -0800

Jari

Let's discuss this in person in Prague.

I can't imagine why the route injection is a problem? ;-) With less than
200 aircraft, ConnexionByBoeing managed to create 20% of the route churn
in the Internet tables.  What's the problem? ;-)

See you in Prague.

Take care
Terry
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:30 PM
> To: Davis, Terry L
> Cc: [email-masked]; TJ Kniveton; Thierry Ernst; [email-masked]; Mobile
> Platform Internet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nemo] WG Review: Recharter of Network Mobility (nemo)
> 
> 
> > Two comments:
following