NEMO Basic Support Protocol IETF 60, San Diego

1
NEMO Basic Support ProtocolIETF 60, San Diego

• Vijay Devarapalli

2
NEMO Basic Support Status

• Approved by the IESG
• In the RFC Editor queue

3
Technical Issues

• Tunnel Interface Flapping
• If tunnel goes up and down every time the MR
  moves, the amount of interface changes can
  overload the HA and result in high level of
  instability in the entire network
• Resolved
• A tunnel interface is consistently assigned to
  each Mobile Router as long as it has a valid
  binding cache at the Home Agent
• Every time the Mobile Router moves and updates
  the binding cache entry, the bi-directional
  tunnel should not be torn down and setup again.
  The tunnel end points should be updated
  dynamically with the Mobile Router's current
  care-of address.
• Hello Packet processing
• Bi-directional tunnel treated as OSPF on-demand
  circuits (RFC 1793)

4
Technical Issues

• OSPF Areas considerations
• The entire Home domain SHOULD NOT be configured
  as a single area if a Home Agent supports Mobile
  Routers. At least the Home Network should be
  configured as a separate area.
• The bi-directional tunnel interfaces to the
  Mobile Routers should never be included in the
  same area as the backbone links.
• Should the Home link be an OSPF area?
• Should each bi-directional tunnel be a stub area?
• Depends on the specific deployment
• HMIPv6 flag M conflicting with NEMO flag R
  (Issue 36)
• Fixed
• Assigning same MNP to different MRs (Issue 37)
• Split mobile networks
• Out of scope for Basic Support

5
Issues that needed clarification

• MNP in a de-registration BU (Issue 30)
• No need to include MNP in a de-registration BU.
  HA removes all associated routes if lifetime of
  BU is zero
• Lifetime in router advertisements sent on egress
  interface (issue 33)
• MUST be set to zero
• Prefix Table (MUST or SHOULD) (Issue 34)
• Is there a need to check the source address of
  the outer IPv6 header (Issue 34)
• Yes if no IPsec protection
• No if there is IPsec protection

6
Issues that needed clarification

• Binding Ack status 140 and explicit mode (Issue
  34)
• Fixed in the current draft. In earlier version
  the MR was not processing 140 in explicit mode.
• Clarifications regarding running a routing
  protocol and trust between the MR and the HA
  (Issue 34)
• Value of R flag in subsequent binding updates
  (Issue 38)
• Should not change
• If needs to be changed, the MR must perform
  de-registration followed by a new home
  registration