Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Basavaraj,

It is a recharter (and a rename). We are not considering taking on significant amount of new work (mostly just removing material from the charter), so I do not think a BOF is needed.

There has been little need to do work on the other extensions, and slow progress with the specifications that do exist. I think we completed the work that was easy to do and had demand. I think we should leave the rest behind. As noted in the other e-mails, I can AD sponsors docs outside the WGs directly to RFC. If there's something big that requires WG discussion, we can always create new working groups later. For instance, if after some time the various security alternates get enough traction, we could consider creating a working group to standardize one.

Jari

On 31.10.2011 22:35, [e-mail] wrote:
> Okay..
> Then I would hope that the rechartering does not throw out "the baby with the bathwater" and keep MIP6/DSMIP6 related extensions and features still in scope.
>
> -Raj
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Julien Laganier [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:33 PM
> To: Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-CIC/Dallas)
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
>
> Hi Raj,
>
> This is a rechartering of the WG.
>
> --julien
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:47 AM,<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jari,
>>
>>
>>
>> A couple of quick questions:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.       Is this a recharter of the MEXT WG or the formation of a new
>> WG to deal with DMM? If it is the latter I would be concerned that a
>> WG is being formed without going through the IETF BoF process. I
>> realize that DMM was in the scope of the MEXT WG. But proposed new
>> charter pretty much throws everything else w.r.t MIP6/DSMIP6 out of this new WG.
>>
>> 2.       There needs to be a WG and home for continued work w.r.t
>> improvements to MIP6/DSMIP6 protocol in terms of extensions,
>> deployability improvements etc. The proposed charter does not consider this at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Basavaraj
>>
>>
>>
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of ext Jari Arkko
>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 7:21 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
>>
>>
>>
>> And a follow-up on the charter. I'm describing a couple of different
>> takes on what the new charter could be. Comments and alternative
>> proposals are welcome. This is what the current charter says about DMM:
>>
>>
>>    The working group will also work on operational considerations on
>>    setting up Mobile IPv6 networks so that traffic is distributed
>>    in an optimal way, for instance by using existing protocol
>> mechanisms
>>    to select the closest home agents for new clients.
>>
>>    Oct 2011 - Submit I-D 'Operational considerations for distributed
>> use of Mobile IPv6' for publication as Informational.
>>
>> Which is admittedly a bit short, but is also very concrete and
>> achievable, if we work on it. I got another proposal from Hui Deng
>> that extended this a bit, including going beyond mere operational considerations.
>>
>>
>> In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been
>> standardized. Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and
>> associated message format, we can identify a few key common features:
>> presence of a centralized mobility anchor providing global
>> reachability and an always-on experience extensions to optimize
>> handover performance while users roam across wireless cells extensions
>> to enable the use of heterogeneous wireless interfaces for multi-mode
>> terminals (e.g. cellular phones) The presence of the centralized
>> mobility anchor allows a mobile device to be reachable when it is not
>> connected to its home domain. The anchor, among other tasks, ensures
>> forwarding of packets destined to or sent from the mobile device. As
>> such, most of the deployed architectures today have a small number of
>> centralized anchors managing the traffic of millions of mobile
>> subscribers.
>>
>> To optimize handovers for mobile users, the base protocols have been
>> extended to efficiently handle packet forwarding between the previous
>> and new points of attachment. These extensions are necessary when
>> applications impose stringent requirements in terms of delay. Notions
>> of localization and distribution of local agents have been introduced
>> to reduce signalling overhead. Unfortunately today we witness
>> difficulties in getting such protocols deployed, often leading to
>> sub-optimal choices. Moreover, all the availability of multi-mode
>> devices and the possibility to use several network interfaces
>> simultaneously have motivated the development of more new protocol extensions.
>>
>> Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content, and
>> impose new requirements on mobile core networks for data traffic
>> delivery. When this traffic demand exceeds available capacity, service
>> providers need to implement new strategies such as selective traffic
>> offload (e.g. 3GPP work items LIPA/SIPTO) through alternative access
>> networks (e.g. WLAN). Moreover, the localization of content providers
>> closer to the Mobile/Fixed Internet Service Providers network requires
>> taking into account local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) while providing mobility services.
>>
>> As long as demand exceeds capacity, both offloading and CDN techniques
>> could benefit from the development of more flat mobile architectures
>> (i.e., fewer levels of routing hierarchy introduced into the data path
>> by the mobility management system). This view is reinforced by the
>> shift in users' traffic behaviour, aimed at increasing direct
>> communications among peers in the same geographical area. The
>> development of truly flat mobile architectures would result in
>> anchoring the traffic closer to point of attachment of the user and
>> overcoming the suboptimal routing issues of a centralized mobility scheme.
>>
>> While deploying today's mobile networks, service providers face new
>> challenges. More often than not, mobile devices remain attached to the
>> same point of attachment, in which case specific IP mobility
>> management support is not required for applications that launch and
>> complete while connected to the same point of attachment. However, the
>> mobility support has been designed to be always on and to maintain the
>> context for each mobile subscriber as long as they are connected to
>> the network. This can result in a waste of resources and ever-increasing costs for the service provider.
>> Infrequent mobility and intelligence of many applications suggest that
>> mobility can be provided dynamically, thus simplifying the context
>> maintained in the different nodes of the mobile network.
>>
>> The proposed charter will address two complementary aspects of
>> mobility management procedures: the distribution of mobility anchors
>> to achieve a more flat design and the dynamic activation/deactivation
>> of mobility protocol support as an enabler to distributed mobility
>> management. The former has the goal of positioning mobility anchors
>> (HA, LMA) closer to the user; ideally, these mobility anchors could be
>> collocated with the first hop router. The latter, facilitated by the
>> distribution of mobility anchors, aims at identifying when mobility
>> must be activated and identifying sessions that do not impose mobility
>> management -- thus reducing the amount of state information to be
>> maintained in the various mobility anchors of the mobile network. The
>> key idea is that dynamic mobility management relaxes some constraints
>> while also repositioning mobility anchors; it avoids the establishment
>> of non optimal tunnels between two anchors topologically distant.
>>
>> Considering the above, the working group will:
>>
>> Define the problem statement and associated requirements for
>> distributed mobility management. This work aims at defining the
>> problem space and identifies the key functional requirements.
>>
>> Produce a gap analysis mapping the above requirements against existing
>> solutions.
>>
>> Give best practices for the deployment of existing mobility protocols
>> in a distributed mobility management and describe limitations of each
>> such approach.
>>
>> Describe extensions, if needed, to current mobility protocols for
>> their application in distributed mobility architectures
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Jari
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>