If you have received this digest without all the individual message
attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
subscription. To do so, go to
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option
globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.
Send 6lowpan mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of 6lowpan digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN (Zach Shelby)
2. Re: MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN (Julien Abeille (jabeille))
3. Re: MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN (Jong-Hyouk Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:16:27 +0300
From: Zach Shelby <[email protected]>
Subject: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN
To: 6lowpan <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
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.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 16:21:49 +0200
From: "Julien Abeille (jabeille)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN
To: "Zach Shelby" <[email protected]>, "6lowpan" <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<38f26f36eaa981478a49d1f37f474a8603210...@xmb-ams-33d.emea.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 23:41:08 +0900
From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN
To: Zach Shelby <[email protected]>, "Julien Abeille (jabeille)"
<[email protected]>
Cc: 6lowpan <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6lowpan/attachments/20090525/29c28f21/attachment.htm
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
End of 6lowpan Digest, Vol 52, Issue 18
***************************************
