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

Conny Larsson <> Tue, 20 December 2011 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2F51F0C3B for <>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:54:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MUFeSFl01UCs for <>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6B41F0C35 for <>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:54:18 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7cfeae000005b81-7b-4ef0d9d739a1
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A2.7E.23425.7D9D0FE4; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:54:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:54:15 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:54:13 +0100
From: Conny Larsson <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jouni korhonen <>, " Laganier" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: Jari Arkko <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:54:20 -0000

Hi Jouni, Julien

I believe the charter looks good but I would like to ask you if 
deployment scenarios are covered by the charter or not (I'm thinking of 
a Informational RFC)?

Let me be a bit more specific. When discussing DMM (in a 3GPP 
perspective) with people I  get the impression that many operators are 
interested in the topic but that they have very few peering points. They 
are not always interested (or they do not see the need) in deploying 
more peering points since they are expensive. Perhaps the reason for 
this is related to the current hierarchical architecture and will change 
with a more distributed architecture.

So what do you think? Is there a need for this kind of document?

Best Regards

On 2011-12-14 09:54, jouni korhonen wrote:
> 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<>
>       Jouni Korhonen<>
>   Internet Area Directors:
>       Ralph Droms<>
>       Jari Arkko<>
>   Internet Area Advisor:
>       Jari Arkko<>
>   Mailing Lists:
>       General Discussion:
>       To Subscribe:
>       Archive:  
> 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 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. 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. 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