Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 09 January 2012 09:11 UTC
Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D0C21F8694 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:11:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1MGANCs8LumN for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C186121F866E for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 01:11:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by laah2 with SMTP id h2so1484213laa.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 01:11:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=CmqaXkdne5d5cqCm0RRU2bB2gbkQNigAcW5UsbQfVsc=; b=bvB79aGCBr2cBBZQgsR0oPOTRltYQ80/fvJHkzfv5JbFcwDvkVbiIXKWjucBMGwP7m /e5AuVW43RKgGP6IH/ymZQATtuUMQ0kx5q2CgnT7cQZttYCFoSCk/UnwBXdSjlq5AzzM 18dBbjIetoVr/31+RsNzzryoLGOzR+cZZcr0k=
Received: by 10.152.113.2 with SMTP id iu2mr6516048lab.26.1326100279699; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 01:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a88-112-207-191.elisa-laajakaista.fi (a88-112-207-191.elisa-laajakaista.fi. [88.112.207.191]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nt7sm70343103lab.15.2012.01.09.01.11.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 Jan 2012 01:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKcc6AedQ1p0PQ83Pi3-BBJKzx8Cae1qzw-rHdzm_J0YxpLyXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:11:15 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4FFDE10F-CF54-47AA-B018-F3C6D585A2E3@gmail.com>
References: <8CAD2158-A0AC-4767-9DDC-857536E26DC6@gmail.com> <CAKcc6Aeqj24Smyvv5VQV5Emtaj-16C=5bpqjyv=-Lt3Haj2B+A@mail.gmail.com> <91BED5F7-FEE9-435E-80F3-5BF01421EB3B@gmail.com> <CAKcc6AedQ1p0PQ83Pi3-BBJKzx8Cae1qzw-rHdzm_J0YxpLyXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:11:22 -0000
Hi Dapeng, On Jan 9, 2012, at 10:34 AM, liu dapeng wrote: > Hi Jouni, > > This version solves the contradiction but it gives me the impression > that DMM will only work on the solution that "managing the use of > care-of/home addresses in an efficient manner ". Is that correct? No. The beginning sentence you cited says: "Solutions may also focus specifically on managing the use of care-of address.." Current text "may also focus" does not restrict the scope only for CoA/HoA management. - Jouni > > Thanks. > Dapeng Liu > > > 2012/1/2, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>: >> Dapeng, >> >> Below is the charter text that was submitted to the next IESG. Does it cover >> all your concerns? >> >> - JOuni >> >> >> >> Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) >> ------------------------------------- >> >> Charter >> >> Current Status: Active >> >> Chairs: >> Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> >> Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> >> >> Internet Area Directors: >> Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> >> Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> >> >> Internet Area Advisor: >> Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> >> >> Mailing Lists: >> General Discussion: mext@ietf.org >> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext >> >> Description of Working Group: >> >> The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group specifies IP >> mobility, access network and routing solutions, which allow for >> setting up IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an >> optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed anchors to manage >> IP mobility sessions. The distributed mobility management solutions >> aim for transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of >> active transport level sessions as mobile hosts or entire mobile >> networks change their point of attachment to the Internet. >> >> The protocol solutions should be based on existing IP mobility >> protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6 >> [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and NEMO [RFC3963]. >> Solutions may also focus specifically on managing the use of care-of >> versus home addresses in an efficient manner for different types of >> communications. >> >> Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) and/or prefix(es) >> and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile hosts/routers >> change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is not a strict >> requirement. Mobile hosts/routers should not assume that IP >> addressing including home address(es) and/or home network prefix(es) >> remain the same throughout the entire upper level session lifetime, >> or that support for mobility functions is provided on the network side >> in all conditions. >> >> The distributed mobility management solutions primarily target IPv6 >> Deployment and should not be tailored specifically to support IPv4, >> in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs >> are used. At least IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile >> host/router and the access networks. Independent of the distributed >> mobility management solution, backward compatibility must be >> maintained. If the network or the mobile host/router do not support >> the distributed mobility management enabling protocol, nothing should >> break. >> >> Work items related to the distributed mobility management include: >> >> o Solution Requirements: Define precisely the problem of distributed >> mobility management and identity the requirements for a distributed >> mobility management solution. >> >> o Best practices: Document best practices for the deployment of existing >> mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment. >> >> o Gap Analysis and extensions: identify the limitations in the best >> current practices with respect to providing the expected functionality. >> >> o If limitations are identified as part of the above deliverable, >> specify extensions to existing protocols that removes these >> limitations within a distributed mobility management environment. >> >> Goals and Milestones: >> >> Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' as a working group >> document. To be Informational RFC. >> Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' as a working >> group document. To be Informational RFC. >> Nov 2012 - Evaluate the need for additional working group document(s) >> for extensions to fill the identified gaps. >> Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' to the IESG for >> consideration as an Informational RFC. >> Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Best practices ' to the IESG forvconsideration >> as an Informational RFC. >> Mar 2013 - Submit I-D 'Gap Analysis' to the IESG for consideration as >> an Informational RFC. >> Mar 2013 - Evaluate the need for further work based on the identified >> gaps and revise the milestones and/or the charter of the >> group. >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 21, 2011, at 7:53 PM, liu dapeng wrote: >> >>> 2011/12/14, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>: >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> We have been working on a charter text from DMM based on the initial goal >>>> setting and the input we received during the Taipei meeting. Note that >>>> this >>>> is the first draft and now we are soliciting for input. >>>> >>>> - Jouni & Julien >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) >>>> ------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Charter >>>> >>>> Current Status: Active >>>> >>>> Chairs: >>>> Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> >>>> Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> Internet Area Directors: >>>> Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> >>>> Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> >>>> >>>> Internet Area Advisor: >>>> Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> >>>> >>>> Mailing Lists: >>>> General Discussion: mext@ietf.org >>>> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext >>>> >>>> Description of Working Group: >>>> >>>> The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group specifies IP >>>> mobility, access network and routing solutions, which allow for >>>> setting up IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an >>>> optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed anchors to manage >>>> IP mobility sessions. The distributed mobility management solutions >>>> aim for transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of >>>> active transport level sessions as mobile hosts or entire mobile >>>> networks change their point of attachment to the Internet. >>> >>> [Comment] >>> >>> This point seems not specific to DMM, since all IP mobility protocol >>> aim for transparency above IP layer. And the point (maintenance of >>> active transport level sessions) contradicts with : “it is not a >>> strict requirement to maintenance stable IP address” (later in the >>> charter). Or does it mean that DMM aims to develop solutions that can >>> maintain active transport level sessions without maintaining stable IP >>> address? >>> >>> >>>> The protocol solutions should be enhancements to existing IP mobility >>>> protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6 >>>> [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and >>>> NEMO [RFC3963]. Alternatively, the distributed mobility management >>>> solution can be transparent to any underlying IP mobility protocol. >>>> Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) and/or prefix(es) >>>> and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile hosts/routers >>>> change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is not a strict >>>> requirement. >>> >>> [comment] >>> please refer the previous comment. >>> I think we should not exclude the solutions that can maintain stable IP >>> address. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mobile hosts/routers should not assume that IP >>>> addressing including home address(es) and/or home network prefix(es) >>>> remain the same throughout the entire upper level session lifetime. >>>> >>>> The distributed mobility management solutions primarily target IPv6 >>>> Deployment and should not be tailored specifically to support IPv4, >>>> in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs >>>> are used. >>> >>> [comment] Since DMM remains backward compatibility with existing IP >>> mobility protocol. And DSMIPv6 can support IPv4, should we also need >>> to keep IPv4 support in DMM? >>> >>> >>> At least IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile >>>> host/router and the access networks. Independent of the distributed >>>> mobility management solution, backward compatibility must be >>>> maintained. If the network or the mobile host/router do not support >>>> the distributed mobility management enabling protocol, nothing should >>>> break. >>>> >>>> Work items related to the distributed mobility management include: >>>> >>>> o Solution Requirements: Define precisely the problem of distributed >>>> mobility management and identity the requirements for a distributed >>>> mobility management solution. >>>> >>>> o Best practices and Gap Analysis: Document best practices for the >>>> deployment of existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility >>>> management environment and identify the limitations of each such >>>> approach with respect to fulfillment of the solution requirements. >>>> >>>> o If limitations are identified as part of the above deliverable, >>>> specify extensions to existing protocols that removes these >>>> limitations within a distributed mobility management environment. >>>> >>>> Goals and Milestones: >>>> >>>> Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' as a working >>>> group document. To be Informational RFC. >>>> Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' as a working >>>> group document. To be Informational RFC. >>>> Nov 2012 - Evaluate the need for additional working group document(s) >>>> for extensions to fill the identified gaps. >>>> Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' to the IESG for >>>> consideration as an Informational RFC. >>>> Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' to the IESG for >>>> consideration as an Informational RFC. >>>> Mar 2013 - Conclude the working group or re-charter. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ------ >>> Best Regards, >>> Dapeng Liu >> >> > > > -- > > ------ > Best Regards, > Dapeng Liu
- [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter jouni korhonen
- [MEXT] 答复: The first proposal for the DMM charter luo.wen
- Re: [MEXT] 答复: The first proposal for the DMM cha… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Behcet Sarikaya
- [MEXT] 答复: Re: 答复: The first proposal for the DMM… luo.wen
- Re: [MEXT] 答复: Re: 答复: The first proposal for the… jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter jouni korhonen
- [MEXT] 答复: Re: 答复: Re: 答复: The first proposal for… luo.wen
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Bruno Mongazon-Cazavet
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Pierrick Seite
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Jari Arkko
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Conny Larsson
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Conny Larsson
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Templin, Fred L
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Templin, Fred L
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Jouni
- Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter Templin, Fred L