Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model

[HyungJin Lim <[e-mail]>]

Hi
See inline
2009/3/2 Teco Boot <[e-mail]>

> Hi,
>
> I think nested-NEMO is handled by MEXT. As soon as the NEMO-RO requirement
> documents are finalized we could check how MANET protocols fit and if there
> is a need for an optimized MANET protocol for NEMO (e.g. MANEMO).
>

I see !! I will expect the phase you address, in MEXT.

>
> For the nested-NEMO addressing model, I am not aware of problems.
> Problems are introduced when the Mobile Network is a MANET, where nodes
> come
> and go and prefix information is sent to (multiple) home agents
> dynamically.


   Right !

>
> The MANET Routing protocol may run over the MRHA tunnel, but this could
> introduce high overhead, especially if metrics are introduced and metrics
> dampening & hysteresis is not implemented.


  From this point you are describing, there are some issues in relation to
address strategy, packet forwarding/routing, and etc. Then MANET routing
protocol can make a proper role in those situation I think.


>
> There could be some issues with MANET + NEMO + multi-homing.
>

I agree.  Your this comment is the one of major issues we should resolve.
I think address configuration strategy will affect on these situations.

At that time, if I need, I will participate to this discussion.

Thanks for your comment.


>
> Regards, Teco
>
>
>
>
> ===============
> Van: HyungJin Lim [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Verzonden: zondag 1 maart 2009 4:06
> Aan: Alexandru Petrescu
> CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Onderwerp: Re: [Autoconf] Autoconf addressing model
>
> inline..
> 2009/2/28, Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>:
> Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano a écrit :
> [...]
> It doesn't matter how many ad hoc segments there are. In the following
> scenario, the link to Access router G disappeared, Router 3 disappeared and
> a Router4 joined IBSS "adhoc1".
>
>
>
>     ---+-------Internet------
>        |                            |           +-------+-------+
>  |Access Router H|       +-------+-------+                |
>              ||Prefix information H          |V                     wifi
> "adhoc1"
>        |                   <---------------------------v-------->
>  <------|--v---------------------->                     |
>  |<-|--------------------v-----------------------|--->
>        |  |                    |                       |
>    +---+--'+               +---'---+               +---'---+
>    |Router1|>-------------<|Router2|>-------------<|Router4|
>    +---L---+ LL1      LL21 +---L---+ LL22      LL4 +---L---+
>        |M1                     |M2                     |M4
>        |H1                     |H2                     |H4
>
>              --------->               --------->
>              Prefix information H     Prefix information H
>
>
> Now, Router2 acts as a relay for Router4, so Router4 can reach Router1 and
> the Internet. Router1 acts as Border Router for all nodes in the MANET.
>
> While I think this is also much in linee with my thinking, I think it's
> better to focus on the simplest cases before.
>
> What are the simplest cases?
>
>    I think we can divided into two category in MANET scenario as follows.
>
>         Category 1
>             Scenario 1: "MANET to Internet", in case, depths of nested
> routers(NEMO)  is under three levels.
>                            This is practical case in real world (i.e.,
> most scenarios in real world)
>          Scenario 2: "MANET to Internet", depths of nested routers is more
> than three levels.
>                              (i.e., perhaps disaster situation, etc.. )
>
>        Category 2 (scenario 3)
>                            : "Only MANET", in case, the network does not
> has
> a connectivity to Internet.
>                              (i.e., peer-to-peer network, etc..)
>
>      Requirement of address model we need is different according with
> considered scenario I think.
>      Then some scenarios included in category 2 not needs topological
> meaningful address.
>
>       Which area is AUTOCONF want to pinpoint ?
>
>       I think AUTOCONF should satisfy requirements between pure MANET, NEMO
> and MANEMO
>       that can compose of mesh network, although we discussed about the
> difference between MANET, NEMO and MANEMO
>
>       Moreover, these networks can has some impacts due to mobility
> pattern,
> wireless coverage and any other situations. AUTOCONF
> Addressing model can make a important role to efficient and secure aspects.
>
>      What do you think about my comments ?
>
>    Hyung-Jin, Lim
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
>
>