Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>:
>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>    Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>
>> 
>> Internet Area Directors:
>>    Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>
>>    Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
>> 
>> Internet Area Advisor:
>>    Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
>> 
>> Mailing Lists:
>>    General Discussion: [e-mail]
>>    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 <[e-mail]>:
>>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>    Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>
>>>> 
>>>> Internet Area Directors:
>>>>    Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>
>>>>    Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
>>>> 
>>>> Internet Area Advisor:
>>>>    Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
>>>> 
>>>> Mailing Lists:
>>>>    General Discussion: [e-mail]
>>>>    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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> ------
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Dapeng Liu
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ------
> Best Regards,
> Dapeng Liu