1. 2007.12.04IETF70 - MEXT WG1 NEMO: Deployments and Requirements NEMO: Deployments and Requirements From a Consumer Electronics Perspective draft-ng-nemo-ce-req-01.txt Chan-Wah Ng Jun Hirano Alexandru Petrescu Eun-Kyoung Paik

2. 2007.12.04IETF70 - MEXT WG2 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

3. 2007.12.04IETF70 - MEXT WG3 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

4. 2007.12.04IETF70 - MEXT WG4 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)

5. 2007.12.04IETF70 - MEXT WG5 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

6. 2007.12.04IETF70 - MEXT WG6 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?

7. 2007.12.04IETF70 - MEXT WG7 Questions for WG Are these requirements reasonable? –Too stringent? –Too general? –Any requirements that we missed?

8. 2007.12.04IETF70 - MEXT WG8 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