Re: [Mip4] RFC 5177 on Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

George Tsirtsis wrote:
[...]
> - not sure I see a reason to do more figures, but if you or someone 
> puts together some relevant figures I would be ok with including them
>  in the draft.

George, some figures are ready, but please clarify me some things first.

When the FA CoA model is used, and no nemov4-fa optimizations, and MR
attached to FA, does a packet's header captured on the link from HA to
FA, packet originally sent from CN to LFN, look like this?

                             src= HA@
                             dst= FA@________________(1)
                             src= HA@
                             dst= MR's HoA___________(2)
                             src= CN@
                             dst= LFN@

Do we call this model a "Foreign Agent Care-of Address" model instead of
a "Care-of Address" model? (section 3.1 ambiguously says "When the
co-located care-of address model is used [vs] When the care-of address
model is used")?

Do we expect a Modified IP Header and a Minimal Forwarding Header (RFC
2004 "Minimal Encapsulation withn IP"), or a GRE Header (RFC 2784
"Generic Routing Encapsulation"), anywhere at points (1) or (2) above?
Or do we assume always IP-in-IP encapsulation (RFC 2003 "IP
Encapsulation within IP").

Alex

> 
> Thanks George
> 
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Alexandru Petrescu 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> George Tsirtsis wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Now that NEMOv4-base is outof the way, how about starting the 
>>> process for 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa-02 ?
>>> 
>> Not sure whether you request procedural advancement or technical 
>> discussion.
>> 
>> Technically, I think there's need of some more syncing on FA-NEMO 
>> docs, eg citing numbers already allocated, ordering between 
>> different mobile network extensions, and maybe other things.  The 
>> Sec section could say how new risks are introduced by th 
>> etunnelling extension and how protection is offered. 3.1 background
>>  could picture a figure or two of tunnels.  Just some thoughts...
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards George
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:47 AM,  <[e-mail]> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC 
>>>> libraries.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> RFC 5177
>>>> 
>>>> Title:      Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4 
>>>> Author:     K. Leung, G. Dommety, V. Narayanan, A. Petrescu 
>>>> Status:     Standards Track Date:       April 2008 Mailbox: 
>>>> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], 
>>>> [e-mail] Pages:      26 Characters: 
>>>> 56094 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
>>>> 
>>>> I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-11.txt
>>>> 
>>>> URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5177.txt
>>>> 
>>>> This document describes a protocol for supporting Mobile 
>>>> Networks between a Mobile Router and a Home Agent by extending
>>>>  the Mobile IPv4 protocol.  A Mobile Router is responsible for
>>>>  the mobility of one or more network segments or subnets moving
>>>>  together.  The Mobile Router hides its mobility from the nodes
>>>>  on the Mobile Network.  The nodes on the Mobile Network may be
>>>>  fixed in relationship to the Mobile Router and may not have
>>>> any mobility function.
>>>> 
>>>> Extensions to Mobile IPv4 are introduced to support Mobile 
>>>> Networks. [STANDARDS TRACK]
>>>> 
>>>> This document is a product of the Mobility for IPv4 Working 
>>>> Group of
>> the IETF.
>>>> This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.
>>>> 
>>>> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards
>>>>  track protocol for the Internet community,and requests 
>>>> discussion and
>> suggestions
>>>> for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the 
>>>> Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the 
>>>> standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution
>>>>  of this memo is unlimited.
>>>> 
>>>> This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST 
>>>> list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF 
>>>> distribution list should be sent to [e-mail]. 
>>>> Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST 
>>>> distribution list should be sent to 
>>>> [e-mail].
>>>> 
>>>> Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by 
>>>> sending an EMAIL message to [e-mail] with the 
>>>> message body
>>>> 
>>>> help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
>>>> 
>>>> To: [e-mail] Subject: getting rfcs
>>>> 
>>>> help: ways_to_get_rfcs
>>>> 
>>>> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either
>>>>  the author of the RFC in question, or to 
>>>> [e-mail].
>> Unless
>>>> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are 
>>>> for unlimited distribution.
>>>> 
>>>> Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to 
>>>> [e-mail].  Please consult RFC 2223, 
>>>> Instructions to
>> RFC
>>>> Authors, for further information.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce 
>>>> mailing list [e-mail] 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>  This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security 
>> System. For more information please visit 
>> http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
    Web interface: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/