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

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

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)
escribió:
> Carlos,
> 
> I have a couple of questions regarding MIRON.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Does allowing the MR to proxy for LNNs result in binding update storms
> 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
> between LNNs and CNs?

	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.


> Will
> 
> ******************************
> William D. Ivancic
> Phone [phone]
> Fax [phone]
> Lab 216-433-2620
> Mobile [phone]
> http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > 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,
> >
> >       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
> >
> >.....
> 
> 
-- 
¡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