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, 09 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
- [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