Motivation

   When mobile routers and mobile nodes converge at the edge of the
   Internet using wireless interfaces, they can form a wireless
   network cloud and are able to provide Internet connectivity to one
   another.  This type of network is called a MANEMO Fringe Stub
   (MFS).  Several issues exist in the MFS such as network loop,
   un-optimized path and multiple exit routers to the Internet.  While
   fixed routers provide connectivity constantly, mobile routers can
   experience intermittent connectivity to the Internet due to their
   movement.  When NEMO Basic Support is used in this context, network
   loops naturally occur.  NEMO forces the packets to always travel
   through the home agent, which in turn causes an un-optimized path
   that can become a considerable problem when mobile routers form a
   nested topology.  Different types of routers are able to provide
   Internet connectivity in the MFS, including both mobile routers and
   fixed access routers.  Any node requiring Internet connectivity has
   to select the best exit router toward the Internet, therefore it is
   necessary for mobile nodes to maintain a local topology in the MFS
   and to utilize any available connectivity with a degree of
   Intelligence.

Background

    At the IETF 68th, we requested BOF slot for MANEMO and
    rejected. However with the Jari's support, we had two unofficial
    meeting (Pre-BOF) about MANEMO. We also presented our problem
    scope in the AUTOCONF, MANET and NEMO meetings at the IETF68.
    Actually, the pre-BOF maybe the first meeting where MANET folks
    and MIP/NEMO folks came to the same table and discuss a topic.
    There was big discussions due to misunderstanding. However, as you
    can see in the agenda of the pre-BOF, many folks from several
    working groups presented their idea for MANEMO. All the activity
    information including the pre-BOF log can be found at
    http://www.mobileip.jp/MANEMO/IETF68.html

    Many internet-drafts were submitted for MANEMO. The list of
    documents can be found at
    http://www.mobileip.jp/MANEMO/Documents.html

    After the IETF68th, we found that the problem we raised was not
    technically accurate. Many attendees confuse what is MANEMO,
    specially folks from AUTOCONF and MANET Working Group.  However, I
    believe there is big differences between MANEMO and
    MANET/AUTOCONF. This is being summarized as an internet draft now
    (not yet published, but will be ready soon). This document should
    be useful to understand the technical problems (specially
    distinguish between AUTOCONF/MANET and MANEMO). We are also
    updating the existing problem statements and other documents for
    the upcoming IETF, though we don't submit the new version to the
    IETF yet.

    We will discuss the problems and goals of MANEMO on the ML before
    this IETF and gets attention of IETF attendees to the "OFFICIAL
    BOF" of MANEMO.

    Industry pay attention to the MANEMO activity at IETF with great
    support.  I also have confidence to describe the exact problems of
    MANEMO at this IETF68th :-) The next step should be to decide what
    IETF can play a roll of this MANEMO activity.  We would like to
    have a BOF to make a discussion of problem and working scope of
    MANEMO in IETF.

Related Groups
   - NEMO WG
   - MANET WG
   - AUTOCONF WG
   - 6LOWPAN WG
   - MIP6 WG
   - etc.

Related Document
   Problem Statement & Analysis
     -draft-wakikawa-manemo-problem-statement-00.txt
     -draft-boot-manet-nemo-analysis-00.txt
     - draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-00.txt
     -draft-mccarthy-manemo-configuration-problems-00.txt
   Solutions
     -draft-thubert-tree-discovery-04.txt
     -draft-thubert-nina-00.txt
     -draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header-07.txt
     -draft-petrescu-manemo-nano-00.txt
   Related Documents from other WGs
     -draft-clausen-nemo-ro-problem-statement-01.txt
     -draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-01.txt
     -draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-03.txt
     -draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-03.txt