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

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