headers
RYUJI WAKIKAWA | 4 Jan 2007 05:17
Picon

Re: Moving forward with charter

Hi  TJ

I agree.

ryuji

On 2006/12/22, at 4:00, T.J. Kniveton wrote:

> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>> We have been working with the automotive industry for years and my
>> feeling is that they are moving slowing and are not ready yet.
> The issue here is that our working group is also moving slowly, and  
> it's time to finish the rechartering work. We have a choice to make  
> - either move forward with some charter we agree on, or continue  
> discussing what should be on the charter
>
> As the leader of the rechartering process, it's my job to make sure  
> that we come to an acceptable result within a reasonable time. We  
> have already spent a very long time discussing this, which is OK  
> because it led to getting everyone's input.
>
> At this point, I suggest that we accept Jari's proposal to move  
> forward with the charter we have, and at the same time investigate  
> what type of route optimization is needed to fix problems that are  
> being seen in PMR deployments. If some WG members produce a draft  
> that describe what these deployment issues are for PMR  
> implementations, and how we can address them, I think we would have  
> a much easier time convincing the IESG that we should be chartered  
> to do that work.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Yang Xiao | 8 Jan 2007 08:11
Picon

IEEE Network, SI on Broadband Access Networks

Call for Papers

A Special Issue of IEEE Network on 

Advances in Broadband Access Networks

Background
The explosive growth of the Internet as well as the emergence of 
various broadband services has been placing a huge bandwidth demand on
the 
underlying telecommunications infrastructure. To support this growth,
the 
backbone networks of the telecommunications infrastructure have 
experienced a tremendous growth in bandwidth capacity with the wide
deployment 
of fiber-optic technology in the past decade. However, the subscriber 
access networks, which cover the "last mile" communications and serve 
numerous residential and small business customers, have not been scaled

up commensurately. Thus the last mile is becoming a potential 
bottleneck, especially with the increasing demand for broadband
services like 
Internet telephony, video (including TV programming) and audio
streaming, 
massively multiuser online gaming, etc. In recent years, the subscriber

access networks have been extensively upgraded with the deployment of 
innovative xDSL and Cable TV technologies. However, these techno!
 logies still have their own limitations and will be severely 
challenged in meeting the ever-increasing bandwidth demands of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
RYUJI WAKIKAWA | 13 Jan 2007 03:30
Picon

CFP: Mobiarch07 <at> SIGCOMM07

[Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
               The Second International Workshop on
    Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture (MobiArch 2007)
                   Kyoto, Japan, August 27, 2007
        (to be held with ACM SIGCOMM 2007, August 27-31, 2007)
       http://user.informatik.uni-goettingen.de/~mobiarch/2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------

With the recent development of technologies in wireless access and
mobile devices, user, terminal, and network mobility has become an
indispensable component of today's Internet vision, and it is likely to
continue in the near future, while affecting the whole architectural
design of the future Internet. Yet, issues like efficient mobility
management and optimization, locator-identifier split, multihoming,
security, and related operational/deployment concerns are still in their
early stages of development. Moreover, the Internet architecture, its
end-to-end principles, and business models will require rethinking due
to the massive penetration of mobility into the Internet.

MobiArch'07 welcomes submissions, from both researchers and
practitioners, in exploration of recent advances in architectures,
protocols, and experiences with emerging technologies on wireless and
mobility over the Internet, with an emphasis on wireless infrastructures
and mobility patterns for mobility support, new mobility protocols,
service discovery, routing and location management, mobile network
performance evaluation and modeling, multi-homing, security,
architectural impacts and deployment considerations.

Topics of Interest:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jari Arkko | 19 Jan 2007 11:47

NEMO rechartering -- moving forward

All,

Some support was received for both PMR and automotive
work on this list.

My initial plan was to force you to focus on exactly
one item in addition to the airline industry needs,
in order to ensure that the group has sufficient
focus.

However, after considering the situation and talking
to the chairs, I would like to go forward with a slightly
changed plan. The below charter allows requirements
work for all three scenarios, but places some limits
on how many solutions the group can work at the
same time. Essentially, you need to complete either
PMR or automotive solution before you take on the
other one. I think this is sufficient to ensure that
the editor, reviewer, etc. resources in this group are
not spread too thin.

Hopefully this works for everyone.

I have sent this charter to the IESG. It will hopefully
be approved in an initial review, at which time it will
go for a 2-week IETF-wide review.

Jari
-----
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Davis, Terry L | 19 Jan 2007 16:39
Picon
Favicon

RE: NEMO rechartering -- moving forward

Jari

I am glad to see this going forward and I believe that the aviation
industry can meet your proposed timelines for compiling our requirements
for Internet mobility.

I would like to make one clarification to the following paragraph from
below
> For the purposes of this working group, a mobile network is a leaf
> network; it does not carry transit traffic.  Nonetheless, it could be
> multihomed, either with a single MR that has multiple attachments to
> the Internet, or by using multiple MRs that attach the mobile network
> to the Internet.

For the aviation industry it is highly likely, that in at least some
scenarios, an aircraft mobile network will carry transit traffic as we
are looking at MANET type options that would allow aircraft to aircraft
traffic routing especially over the oceans.

Take care
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko <at> piuha.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:48 AM
> To: IETF NEMO WG
> Subject: [nemo] NEMO rechartering -- moving forward
> 
> All,
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Roberto Baldessari | 19 Jan 2007 18:15
Picon

RE: NEMO rechartering -- moving forward

Dear Jari, dear all,

I'm currently collecting use cases and requirements inside the Car2Car Communication Consortium, which
is standardizing vehicular communications in Europe, into an I-D to be submitted to the NEMO WG within end
of February.

What Terry asked regarding aviation industry is important for automotive industry as well, at least in
Europe. 
The Car2Car Consortium mainly focuses on VANETs (Vehicular ad-hoc networks) based on short-range
communication devices and therefore considers direct vehicle-to-vehicle as fundamental. Dedicated
points of attachment will be installed, but their diffusion will be rather limited at least in the
short/mid term.

Is integration of VANETs and NEMO to be considered out of scope of the charter as consequence of the "leaf
network" assumption?

Thanks and best regards,

Roberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davis, Terry L [mailto:terry.l.davis <at> boeing.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 4:40 PM
> To: Jari Arkko; IETF NEMO WG; Mobile Platform Internet Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [nemo] NEMO rechartering -- moving forward
> 
> Jari
> 
> I am glad to see this going forward and I believe that the 
> aviation industry can meet your proposed timelines for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
K.Kawaguchi | 23 Jan 2007 01:20
Picon

IPv6 Ready Logo committee began Logo Phase-2 NEMO

Hello,

IPv6 Ready Logo committee began Logo Phase-2 NEMO on 2007/01/22.
Please visit following URL if you are interested.

  http://www.ipv6ready.org/
    http://www.ipv6ready.org/about_phase2_test.html

However, this target has the following conditions.
---
The target product of current Logo NEMO is NEMO Extended Home Network
model, and Home Address derived from Home Network Prefix.
(Other home network models and Home Address derived from Mobile Network
 Prefix are treated as a further study in the future depending on the
 implementing situation.)
---

We hope many vender use, and the product quality and the research of
implementation deepen.

Best regards
---
Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jari Arkko | 24 Jan 2007 14:40

Re: NEMO rechartering -- moving forward

Hi Terry,
> I am glad to see this going forward and I believe that the aviation
> industry can meet your proposed timelines for compiling our requirements
> for Internet mobility.
>   
Great!
> I would like to make one clarification to the following paragraph from
> below
>   
>> For the purposes of this working group, a mobile network is a leaf
>> network; it does not carry transit traffic.  Nonetheless, it could be
>> multihomed, either with a single MR that has multiple attachments to
>> the Internet, or by using multiple MRs that attach the mobile network
>> to the Internet.
>>     
>
> For the aviation industry it is highly likely, that in at least some
> scenarios, an aircraft mobile network will carry transit traffic as we
> are looking at MANET type options that would allow aircraft to aircraft
> traffic routing especially over the oceans.
>   
I think that makes sense for your case.

First, I have a question to you: does the MANET part have
an impact on the used NEMO techniques? I'm not sure
there has to be any impact; an MR can be a MANET router
at the same time, and from the perspective of the hosts served
by the MR or the ground base infrastructure, it does
not matter if the MR - infrastructure path uses
a single link, traditional routing, or ad hoc routing.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jari Arkko | 24 Jan 2007 14:42

Re: NEMO rechartering -- moving forward

Roberto,
> Is integration of VANETs and NEMO to be considered out of scope of the charter as consequence of the "leaf
network" assumption?
>   
Does my answer to Terry answer your question as well?

Jari
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Roberto Baldessari | 25 Jan 2007 14:43
Picon

RE: NEMO rechartering -- moving forward

Jari,

Thank you for your feedback.

> Does my answer to Terry answer your question as well?

Yes, it does. VANETs naturally fit into MANEMO BOF, though C2C-C Consortium approach is quite different
from what described in current MANEMO problem statement draft. Anyway, I'll submit the ID from C2C-CC
then the discussion will probably continue in MANEMO.

Thanks,

Roberto
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane