For those interested in the proxy conflict issue between an edge router and a HA, please follow this link: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mext/trac/ticket/16
Pascal >-----Original Message----- >From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >Sent: mardi 26 mai 2009 12:04 >To: 'Zach Shelby'; Ricardo Silva >Cc: [email protected]; 'Charles E. Perkins' >Subject: RE: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN (Ricardo Silva) > >Agreed all the way through, > >Also: > >- we have to consider HA and edge router cohabitation on a same link, since >the 3775(bis) HA policy is not to >give an address back without proper defense when the node comes back home. >IOW, the HA policy is that the >proxy wins against the real thing, a model that I pushed to change in the >revision but failed to this point. > >- I have trouble to see PMIP in route over when the LoWPAN routers are >actually very constrained as well, >probably a lot more than a mobile device such as a palmtop that would use the >LoWPAN as last resort >communication medium. MIPv6 or NEMO seem a better fit in that case. > >Pascal > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>Zach Shelby >>Sent: lundi 25 mai 2009 23:08 >>To: Ricardo Silva >>Cc: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN (Ricardo Silva) >> >>Hi Ricardo, >> >>Thanks for reminding about your draft. A couple quick comments: >> >>- This model would require the edge routers to be aware of this "Micro >>MIPv6" message format, and to provide the compression/decompression. >>This means such a micro format would need separate standardization. >> >>- You should take draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-05 (when posted) into account as >>it will provide next-header compression for extension headers including >>some of the optimizations needed by your draft. >> >>You might want to consider PMIPv6 and NEMO in your next draft, and how >>proxy methods could be used first and foremost to avoid LoWPAN nodes to >>get involved with MIPv6 at all. >> >>PMIPv6 and NEMO don't solve the problem of node mobility between domains >>however, which would still require a LoWPAN node to speak MIPv6. >> >>Then again, it probably is just a reality that IPv6 addresses of LoWPAN >>nodes will change upon inter-domain node mobility... and applications >>will need to live with that. >> >>- Zach >> >>Ricardo Silva wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I am sending our draft about mobility in lowPANs. It would be great if >>> you could send me your feedback. >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-silva-6lowpan-mipv6/ >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Ricardo Mendão Silva >>> >>> Laboratory of Telecommunications and Telematic >>> Department of Informatics Engineering >>> University of Coimbra >>> PORTUGAL >>> >>> >>> On May 25, 2009, at 7:00 PM, [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>> *************************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 6lowpan mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan >> >>-- >>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
