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

liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com> Mon, 09 January 2012 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <maxpassion@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 125FA21F8694 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:34:13 -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 JiykPTo4wnCj for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B7621F8692 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so7013275iab.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 00:34:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dAFR9aynRJnb3mf7+LTsY78ZkRLC4geMWB8EUXSijyw=; b=uf643kG5lGvclB+6ap/wOxnLJJBOkFczL7HULVxarMYcSvszv7Pbl69nTlAYWyA05h qBqRXyrkOr7yTHxILFL7UwUmOtM/sIn1aNhxAKvlevSmMp6zi9CWtk3u1S0sF2W1QNs1 bllQN+ro8DpffknT1a0owt1AdjlXk1yHdxldk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.152.65 with SMTP id h1mr15030312icw.50.1326098051423; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 00:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.50.1 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:34:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <91BED5F7-FEE9-435E-80F3-5BF01421EB3B@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>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:34:11 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKcc6AedQ1p0PQ83Pi3-BBJKzx8Cae1qzw-rHdzm_J0YxpLyXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 08:34:13 -0000

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?

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