Re: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN

Hi, all.

NEMO scenarios within PMIPv6 domain have been presented in the following
document.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-netlmm-nemo-scenarios-01

Hope you find useful scenarios for 6LowPAN.

Cheers.

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Julien Abeille (jabeille) <
jabeille@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Zach,
>
> The issue with NEMO is that if nodes move from one router to another
> (meaning the routers doing the nemo signaling), their address change.
> NEMO is made to handle mobility of the whole network behind the router,
> not individual nodes moving from this network to another.
>
> What you are probably looking for is Proxy Mobile IPv6
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5213.txt) and in general the work behing
> done by the netlmm working group
> (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/netlmm-charter.html) and the netext
> working group (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/netext-charter.html).
>
> Best,
> Julien
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:6lowpan-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Zach Shelby
> Sent: lundi 25 mai 2009 15:16
> To: 6lowpan
> Subject: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN
>
> Hi,
>
> On a bit of a tangent... I have been studying different ways of dealing
> with mobility of 6LoWPAN nodes and networks. Extended LoWPANs provide
> some mobility support for micro-mobility, which is good. Properly
> designed applications can also deal with IP addresses changing. But what
> if you would want to have a stable IP address for a 6LoWPAN node or a
> stable prefix for a whole LoWPAN?
>
> MIPv6 have several problems to be used directly by LoWPAN nodes, e.g.:
> - IP-in-IP encapsulation with the home agent
> - Security for binding management messages
> - Potentially large amounts of binding messages Is anyone aware of work
> on MIPv6 proxy mechanisms which would allow e.g.
> an Edge Router to proxy MIPv6 operations on behalf of a LoWPAN node?
> Maybe revive the Foreign Agent for IPv6? ;-)
>
> NEMO is much more clearly applicable to 6LoWPAN network mobility. The
> basic NEMO protocol is a perfect match, allowing an Edge Router or other
> router in the visited network to act as a Mobile Router and perform
> MIPv6 on behalf of the network. Thus maintaining constant prefixes for
> all LoWPANs under the router. I don't see route optimization to be
> necessary for NEMO used with 6LoWPAN, the performance of traffic going
> through the home agent should be fine.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - Zach
>
> --
> http://www.sensinode.com
> http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
> Mobile: +358 40 7796297
>
> Zach Shelby
> Head of Research
> Sensinode Ltd.
> Kidekuja 2
> 88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND
>
> This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain
> legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without
> producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>

-- 
Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University.
Jong-Hyouk Lee.

#email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
#webpage: http://hurryon.googlepages.com/