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

["George Tsirtsis" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

inline...

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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")?
>

GT> The above shows a "care-of address" model (aka "FA" model).
colocated care-of address model is the one where the MN has a unique
care-of addresses, as opposed to a shared on, and I think this is
standard MIPv4 terminology.


>  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").
>

GT> All the encapsulations are negotiated as part of RFC3344, which
should fully apply in this case for point (1). (2) is just IP in IP as
per NEMO.

>  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/