headers
Roberto Baldessari | 3 Jul 2006 11:05
Picon

RE: Deployment Requirements

Dear Thierry, dear all,

Unfortunately we can't provide you an input in time for the coming IETF
in Montreal.
The background of that is that C2CCC's work on a architecture
description document to be published soon is behind the schedules.
When this official document will be available (hopefully for the next
IETF) or at least in a stable status, I'd be glad to provide you the
document and give you an overview of the C2CCC activities. 

Kind regards,

Roberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:thierry.ernst <at> inria.fr] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 6:18 PM
> To: nemo <at> ietf.org
> Cc: Roberto Baldessari
> Subject: Re: [nemo] Deployment Requirements
> 
> 
> Dear Roberto,
> 
> Thank you for this very useful feedback. I'm glad to hear 
> that people from the C2C are monitoring this list.  What we 
> would expect from an organization such as C2C is a list of 
> requirements sent to the NEMO WG as an input. Of course, the 
> list of requirements may probably cover other IETF WGs, so it 
> would serve as an input to the entire Internet Areaf of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alexandru Petrescu | 10 Jul 2006 17:06

Re: NEMO Meeting

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> The NEMO WG meeting is scheduled on 
>> TUESDAY, July 11, 2006 
>> 1850-1950 Afternoon Session IV
>> Room 513C-F	INT	nemo	Network Mobility WG
> 
> As you can see, we only requested 1 hour this time. Requests will be
> allocated based on WG priorities and interest shown on the ML.
> 
> If you want to get some time, please do so and provide:
> 1. Title
> 2. Speaker
> 3. Expected Time, Q&A included 
> 4. related draft or ML discussion topics

Hi Thierry, I would like to ask for a 5 minutes slot:

Title: "NEMOv4 base protocol"
Speaker: myself
Time: 5 minutes, QA included.
Draft: draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-01 http://tinyurl.com/jk657

Thanks,

Alex
Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Thierry Ernst | 10 Jul 2006 21:02
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Agenda for NEMO WG meeting


Dear all,

Please find below the draft for the NEMO WG meeting held on Tuesday PM
18.50-19.50 (1 hour slot).

Our discussion will concentrate on the current status of the NEMO WG
rechartering and deployment issues. Regarding this last topic, we do
expect contribution in the form of a draft from folks in the automotive,
aeronautic and telecom industries to express their concerns on what is
needed to deploy RFC 3963, but in the meantime, it might be useful to
get a better sense of the room from attendees, so 10mins have been
allocated for that purpose at the end of the meeting. So, if you are
planning to deploy products or services using RFC 3963 (NEMO Basic
Support), here is a good opportunity for you to share your views.

Chairs.

Agenda for the NEMO WG meeting, IETF66
Montreal, Canada

Tuesday, July 11
Chairs: TJ Kniveton & Thierry Ernst

1. Welcome, agenda bashing ....................................... 05 mins
	Chairs 

2 WG documents status ............................................ 10 mins
	Chairs
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
K.Kawaguchi | 14 Jul 2006 05:27
Picon

Re: MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)

Hi,

I'm sorry for the passage of time.
We open the test specification to the public and are requesting the review.

http://www.ipv6ready.org/announcement/public_review20060621_nemo.html
	#20  NEMO-MR-2-2-1-1-040 - BU accepted (Status = 0 & R = OFF)
	#93  NEMO-MR-5-1-2-1-031 - Receiving HAAD-Reply(R = OFF by NEMO not suppoted & 1st = HA0 & 2nd = HA1)

As for us, IPv6 Ready Logo Phase-2 NEMO will contain the test of this situation now.
However, we haven't the conviction yet.

The test point is that MR looks for HA by using HA-list acquired from HAADReply(Rflag=0).
The following are figures where the test point was summarized.
Is this test content right as the operation based on RFC3963?　Or, is it an excessive demand?

Topology

  -+-------+-------+------+----------- Home link
   |       |       |      |
  HA0     HA1      |      R
                   |      |
                   |    --+--------+-- Foreign Link
                   |               |
                   MR >>>>>>>>>>>> MR  
                      * MR move to foreign link

Message Chart

  HA0     HA1      MR      R1      MR
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Vijay Devarapalli | 18 Jul 2006 02:07

Re: MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)

let me see if I understand this right. you have two
home agents on the home link one of which supports
mobile routers and the other does not.

K.Kawaguchi wrote:
>   HA0     HA1      MR      R1      MR
>    |       |       |       |         
>    |       |       |       |         
>    |       |       |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|  1. MR move to foreign link
>    |       |               |       |  
>    |       | <-------------------- |  2. Binding Update
>    |       |               |       |     (Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0)
>    |       |               |       |  
>    |       | --------------------> |  3. Binding Acknowledgement
>    |       |               |       |     (Status=0, Hflag=1, Rflag=0, Lifetime>0)
>    |       |               |       |  
>    |       | <-------------------- |  4. Home Agent Address Discovery Request
>    |       |               |       |     (Rflag=1)
>    |       |               |       |  
>    |       | --------------------> |  5. Home Agent Address Discovery Reply
>    |       |               |       |     (Rflag=0, Address=HA1, HA0)

even though the DHAAD reply is from HA1, the Rflag
should be set to 1 since

   If a Home Agent receives a
   Dynamic Home Agent Discovery request message with the Mobile Router
   Support Flag set, it MUST reply with a list of Home Agents supporting
   Mobile Routers.  The Mobile Router Support Flag MUST be set if there
   is at least one Home Agent supporting Mobile Routers.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
K.Kawaguchi | 18 Jul 2006 08:07
Picon

Re: MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)


"Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)"
"Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalli <at> azairenet.com>" wrote:

> let me see if I understand this right. you have two
> home agents on the home link one of which supports
> mobile routers and the other does not.
> 
> K.Kawaguchi wrote:
> >   HA0     HA1      MR      R1      MR
> >    |       |       |       |         
> >    |       |       |       |         
> >    |       |       |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|  1. MR move to foreign link
> >    |       |               |       |  
> >    |       | <-------------------- |  2. Binding Update
> >    |       |               |       |     (Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0)
> >    |       |               |       |  
> >    |       | --------------------> |  3. Binding Acknowledgement
> >    |       |               |       |     (Status=0, Hflag=1, Rflag=0, Lifetime>0)
> >    |       |               |       |  
> >    |       | <-------------------- |  4. Home Agent Address Discovery Request
> >    |       |               |       |     (Rflag=1)
> >    |       |               |       |  
> >    |       | --------------------> |  5. Home Agent Address Discovery Reply
> >    |       |               |       |     (Rflag=0, Address=HA1, HA0)
> 
> even though the DHAAD reply is from HA1, the Rflag
> should be set to 1 since
> 
>    If a Home Agent receives a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alexandru Petrescu | 24 Jul 2006 11:48

Moving Networks at Montreal Social?

It seems that the boat where the Social Event in Montreal was run was
giving Internet access to users.  This was mentioned during the
administrative Plenary session.

I wonder if anybody used this as a client at the Social event?  I wasn't
there unfortunately due to not enough tickets.

Thanks,

Alex
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane