Hi all, -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent: mardi 26 mai 2009 13:05 To: Zach Shelby Cc: 6lowpan Subject: Re: [6lowpan] MIPv6 and 6LoWPAN
Hi Zach, Right, a good conceptual place to put a Mobile IPv6-based NEMO Mobile Router is the Edge Router. However, the Edge Router (Border Router?) isn't supposed to move. There are other concepts in the NEMO-MANET interaction space that could be interesting for LoWPAN ER. For example, if each ER informed the other ER about the prefix it holds on its sensor link, then the other ERs could reach these sensors. This was proposed for example for egress-egress interactions of Mobile Routers, using ICMP RA. It could probably be OSPF instead. Also, probably, it could make sense to have one sensor-node MR to move from under one ER (move together with some of its smaller sensornode LFNs) to another ER, and consider the old ER to be its Home Agent, and execute Mobile IPv6-based NEMO protocol extensions. In this sense, the ER wouldn't be an IPv6-based FA, but a HA. About PMIPv6: obviously PMIPv6 would apply in a sense, but first is ER supposed to be the PMIPv6 MAG or the PMIPv6 LMA? [Julien] In my opinion ER would be a MAG. As Pascal mentionned, this works pretty well in a mesh under scenario, not route over. I would think MIPv6 applies in the route over case. I do not see yet what NEMO would bring. (PMIPv6 design works in a way as NEMO does, in that PMIPv6 MAG updates a prefix on PMIPv6 LMA, just as NEMO MR updates a prefix on NEMO HA). [Julien] I agree, but in NEMO by default the MR moves, and the nodes on the ingress interface don't. In PMIPv6 the MAG does not move, and the nodes on the ingress do. Best, Julien Alex Zach Shelby a écrit : > 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 > _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
