Subject: [nemo] Update on MIRON I-D (draft-bernardos-nemo-miron-01.txt)

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:33:12 +0200

Hi,

	We've just submitted an update of the I-D that describes or NEMO RO
proposal: MIRON (MIPv6 Route Optimisation for NEMO). Until it appears on
the I-D repository, it can be downloaded from the following location:

http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/papers/draft-bernardos-nemo-miron-01.txt

	This version includes an analysis (in an appendix) of how our proposed
solution fits each of the Aeronautics NEMO RO requirements
(draft-eddy-nemo-aero-reqs-01.txt).

	Comments would be appreciated.

	The abstract of the I-D is copied below:

   The Network Mobility Basic Support protocol enables networks to roam
   and attach to different access networks without disrupting the
   ongoing sessions that nodes of the network may have.  By extending
   the Mobile IPv6 support to Mobile Routers, nodes of the network are
   not required to support any kind of mobility, since packets must go
   through the Mobile Router-Home Agent (MRHA) bi-directional tunnel.
   Communications from/to a mobile network have to traverse the Home
   Agent, and therefore better paths may be available.  Additionally,
   this solution adds packet overhead, due to the encapsulation.

   This document describes an approach to the Route Optimisation for
   NEMO, called Mobile IPv6 Route Optimisation for NEMO (MIRON).  MIRON
   enables mobility-agnostic nodes within the mobile network to directly
   communicate (i.e. without traversing the MRHA bi-directional tunnel)
   with Correspondent Nodes.  The solution is based on the Mobile Router
   performing the Mobile IPv6 Route Optimisation signalling on behalf of
   the nodes of the mobile network.

   This document (in an appendix) also analyses how MIRON fits each of
   the NEMO RO Aeronautics requirements.

	Kind Regards,

	Carlos J.

-- 
¡ASÓCIATE! Gratis para estudiantes  http://www.telematica.ws
 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
 GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

---

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:10:53 -0500

Carlos,

I have a couple of questions regarding MIRON.

How does allowing the MR to proxy for LNNs scale? 

Does allowing the MR to proxy for LNNs result in binding update storms during network transisions?

How does this work in a multi-homed mobile network?  (Perhaps a monami6 related questions, but monami6, nemo and mip6 will soon be combined.)

How does allowing the MR to proxy for LNNs effect Ipsec traffic between LNNs and CNs?

The draft indicates code was tested in some sort of test network.  Are there any papers or links to results.  I am interested in how many LNNs and CNs were used in the test deployment.

Will

******************************
William D. Ivancic
Phone 216-433-3494
Fax 216-433-8705
Lab 216-433-2620
Mobile 440-503-4892
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 5:33 AM
> To: IETF NEMO WG
> Cc: Marcelo Bagnulo; María Calderón; Ignacio Soto Campos
> Subject: [nemo] Update on MIRON I-D 
> (draft-bernardos-nemo-miron-01.txt)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> proposal: MIRON (MIPv6 Route Optimisation for NEMO). Until it 
> appears on the I-D repository, it can be downloaded from the 
> following location:
> 
>.....

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:59:20 +0200

Hi William,

	Thanks for your interest on our solution.

	You have raised several interesting questions. Below, we try to address
some of them. In an appendix of the I-D, we have analysed how MIRON fits
the requirements of Aeronautics (based on
draft-eddy-nemo-aero-reqs-01.txt) and there you can find some additional
information about most of the questions you raised.

El lun, 09-07-2007 a las 13:10 -0500, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0)
> How does allowing the MR to proxy for LNNs scale?

	Regarding the impact on the global routing tables, very well, since
MIRON does not impact them in any way.
Regarding the signalling load, we did some maths in the appendix of the
I-D and with 9.6 kbps, MIRON would be able to optimise about 1500 LFN-CN
flows.
> during network transisions?

	Since the MR performs all the MIPv6 signalling on behalf of LFNs for
those LFN-CN flows that are required to be optimised, this might result
that a number of BUs is sent when the NEMO moves. This is the same that
would happen today in cellular telephony networks when users in a train
move and their phones need to perform a handover to a different radio
cell.
> 
> How does this work in a multi-homed mobile network?  (Perhaps a
> monami6 related questions, but monami6, nemo and mip6 will soon be
> combined.)

	MIRON is compatible with MONAMI6 multiple-CoA registration solution. In
principle, since MIRON its based on MIPv6 RO, any extensions to support
multihoming, could be applied to MIRON as well.

> How does allowing the MR to proxy for LNNs effect Ipsec traffic

	ESP is supported. AH is not fully supported.
> 
> The draft indicates code was tested in some sort of test network.  Are
> there any papers or links to results.  I am interested in how many
> LNNs and CNs were used in the test deployment.

	Reference [17] in the I-D provides some of the results we obtained.
However, the tests that we performed were not focused on handover
performance.

	Kind Regards,

	Carlos

   [17]  Calderon, M., Bernardos, C., Bagnulo, M., Soto, I., and A. de
         la Oliva, "MIRON: Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization for NEMO",
         IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (J-SAC), issue
         on Mobile Routers and Network Mobility, Volume 24, Number 9,
         pp. 1702-1716 , September 2006.