Hi, all. NEMO scenarios within PMIPv6 domain have been presented in the following document.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-netlmm-nemo-scenarios-01 Hope you find useful scenarios for 6LowPAN. Cheers. On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Julien Abeille (jabeille) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Zach, > > The issue with NEMO is that if nodes move from one router to another > (meaning the routers doing the nemo signaling), their address change. > NEMO is made to handle mobility of the whole network behind the router, > not individual nodes moving from this network to another. > > What you are probably looking for is Proxy Mobile IPv6 > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5213.txt) and in general the work behing > done by the netlmm working group > (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/netlmm-charter.html) and the netext > working group (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/netext-charter.html). > > Best, > Julien > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Zach Shelby > Sent: lundi 25 mai 2009 15:16 > To: 6lowpan > Subject: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN > > Hi, > > On a bit of a tangent... I have been studying different ways of dealing > with mobility of 6LoWPAN nodes and networks. Extended LoWPANs provide > some mobility support for micro-mobility, which is good. Properly > designed applications can also deal with IP addresses changing. But what > if you would want to have a stable IP address for a 6LoWPAN node or a > stable prefix for a whole LoWPAN? > > MIPv6 have several problems to be used directly by LoWPAN nodes, e.g.: > - IP-in-IP encapsulation with the home agent > - Security for binding management messages > - Potentially large amounts of binding messages Is anyone aware of work > on MIPv6 proxy mechanisms which would allow e.g. > an Edge Router to proxy MIPv6 operations on behalf of a LoWPAN node? > Maybe revive the Foreign Agent for IPv6? ;-) > > NEMO is much more clearly applicable to 6LoWPAN network mobility. The > basic NEMO protocol is a perfect match, allowing an Edge Router or other > router in the visited network to act as a Mobile Router and perform > MIPv6 on behalf of the network. Thus maintaining constant prefixes for > all LoWPANs under the router. I don't see route optimization to be > necessary for NEMO used with 6LoWPAN, the performance of traffic going > through the home agent should be fine. > > Thoughts? > > - Zach > > -- > http://www.sensinode.com > http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things" > Mobile: +358 40 7796297 > > Zach Shelby > Head of Research > Sensinode Ltd. > Kidekuja 2 > 88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND > > This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain > legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, > please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without > producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof. > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > -- Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University. Jong-Hyouk Lee. #email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com #webpage: http://hurryon.googlepages.com/
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
