Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 31 October 2011 20:33 UTC
Return-Path: <julien.ietf@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 A152C11E8241 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.273, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
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 ncKiOSOBLmTj for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94AE111E8242 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qadc10 with SMTP id c10so6787423qad.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
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=zof/lku/XMQNKfiVYNHIsevZMqFctZTr9slsB1W6140=; b=xbp19sjTS0aUNjZ7jiIU72sCn2ie7obRWWBxuJ9sASju7UlVzqKv058s8QI58IQQgv kVSnwfvN5i0GgBDlerDqaHtz2ynhmnmqxdoiOmZ6hQ/t3qEoA0oir4oYD635bH87WGod /D8cEjWgpdvrEEzxXg6RR2ptyGsfnYSHO4MbI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.15.170 with SMTP id y10mr4765378pbc.76.1320093186588; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.62.2 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <21E7D9BD69CC7241AAE00F4EA183B719014CE67F@008-AM1MPN1-071.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <4EAA9B4A.3020208@piuha.net> <4EAA9E34.2080903@piuha.net> <21E7D9BD69CC7241AAE00F4EA183B719014CE67F@008-AM1MPN1-071.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:33:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjvyKdwNbHyOy5dJUdS3NgP5u1pNqK32EZUcPnGSm-suxg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: jari.arkko@piuha.net, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
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, 31 Oct 2011 20:33:08 -0000
Hi Raj, This is a rechartering of the WG. --julien On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:47 AM, <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> 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: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext > Jari Arkko > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 7:21 AM > To: mext@ietf.org > 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 > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hui Deng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hui Deng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Jari Arkko
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Thierry Ernst
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Pete McCann
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item (was: the futu… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Thierry Ernst
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item karagian
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] automotive reqs WG item Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hidetoshi Yokota
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hesham Soliman
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group liu dapeng
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group jouni korhonen
- Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group h chan