80 likes | 211 Views
NEMO: Deployments and Requirements From a Consumer Electronics Perspective draft-ng-nemo-ce-req-01.txt. Chan-Wah Ng <chanwah.ng@sg.panasonic.com > Jun Hirano <hirano.jun@jp.panasonic.com > Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com > Eun-Kyoung Paik <euna@kt.co.kr >.
E N D
NEMO: Deployments and RequirementsFrom a Consumer Electronics Perspectivedraft-ng-nemo-ce-req-01.txt Chan-Wah Ng <chanwah.ng@sg.panasonic.com> Jun Hirano <hirano.jun@jp.panasonic.com> Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com> Eun-Kyoung Paik <euna@kt.co.kr> IETF70 - MEXT WG
Updates since Chicago • More co-authors :) • Deployment Scenarios • Simple PANs • Added more example usage such as sensors network • PMRs in Vehicles • Added the case where PAN merges with Car network • Requirements and Desired Features • Break into requirements and desired features IETF70 - MEXT WG
Quick Recap: Scenarios • Simple PANs • PMR provides internet connections to nodes in PAN • An MNN may leave the PAN (and continue to use same address) • An MNN may become a PMR and vice versa • PMRs in Vehicles • PMR docks into Car • Distinct network – nested NEMO • Merged network – Multi-Router NEMO • Residence Network • HA is a set-top box at home (literally) • Most of these scenarios are not new: • Presented by Vijay a year ago • Found in MANEMO/Autoconf discussions IETF70 - MEXT WG
Requirements • [Req1] – Unmodified LFN • A route optimization solution MUST operate even when LFNs are unmodified • LFNs are simple IPv6 devices that cannot be easily patched or updated • [Req2] – Low Processing Load • A route optimization solution MUST NOT increase the processing load of MR significantly • PMR are battery powered devices • [Req3] – Security • A route optimization solution MUST NOT expose the mobile network to additional security threats • Not possible for attackers to claim ownership of mobile network prefix • Not any more susceptible to DoS attack (eg. force MR to send huge amount of signaling packets or maintain large number of signaling states) IETF70 - MEXT WG
Desired Features • [Des1] – MR-to-MR RO • Most deployments scenarios we envisage are communications between PANs • [Des2] – Nested NEMO RO • When the PAN goes into a vehicle/vessel, nested NEMO is formed • [Des3] – Intra-NEMO RO • When the PAN enters the vehicle network, some form of communications between the nodes from the two networks may occur IETF70 - MEXT WG
Questions for WG • Are these scenarios what the WG expects? • Similar scenarios we overlooked? • Any scenarios that are not useful at all? • Should we explore further into: • PANs in vehicle/vessel scenario? • MNNs breaking off from PAN? IETF70 - MEXT WG
Questions for WG • Are these requirements reasonable? • Too stringent? • Too general? • Any requirements that we missed? IETF70 - MEXT WG
Questions for WG • Should we adopt this as WG work item for A.5(3)? • Adopting this does not mean it is completed • it only means we work on it as a WG • There is no competing contribution for this WG item IETF70 - MEXT WG