Subject: [Autoconf] FW: MANEMO is not just about Nested Nemo

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:01:08 -0400

FYI per yesterdays discussion.
/jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Bound, Jim 
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: MANEMO is not just about Nested Nemo

Yesterday at manet autoconfig wg it was suggested MANEMO is just about
Nested NEMO. This is very wrong as nested NEMO is only part of what
MANEMO is addressing.

Here is technical example.

Fire Brigade is deployed and three MANETS are set up.  Each of them are
also attached to Mobile Routers at ingress interface and to the Fire
Brigade L3 MESH at the Egress Interface.  The Fire Brigade L3 MESH is
also attached to the Metro Network fixed network (could be L3 MESH
portal or backhaul via Satcom or 802.16x).  

The Fire Brigade MESH is blow up for some 911 reason and the L3 MESH is
gone.

Each of the MANETs become MANEMO Fringe Stubs.

These MANETs need a means to connect to the Metro Network and converge
and be able to use the fixed network as a form for the three MANETs to
communicate.

The above is a simple use case of MANEMO MFS.

Do we have all the protocols required today in the IETF to perform this
convergence?

Do we have the operational interfaces and ops protocols or BCPs to deal
with this?

Can we optimize any existing network technology (e.g. Multicast,
Anycast, NEMO) or protocols (e.g. IPv6 ND, OLSR/NHDP, DYMO) to address
this scenario.

NB: If your on this list and you don't know technically in depth
wireless, portals, backhauls, etc please speak one must understand
technically these paradigms to understand MANEMO and the discussion.  We
may need an updated spec on this new paradigm in general within the IETF
archives simply for training.

/jim

_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf