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

<> Mon, 19 December 2011 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA2811E8080 for <>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:32:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id byWJBNthjC3d for <>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:32:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A2E11E8073 for <>; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:32:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 19 Dec 2011 14:32:44 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:32:44 +0100
From: <>
To: <>, <>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:28:51 +0100
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
Thread-Index: Acy901Ti26SbOvHBRYq9ieqmFqxjHgAe5/1g
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:32:57 -0000

Hi Jouni and all,

Just a short question on the meaning of
'DMM solution can be transparent to any underlying IP mobility protocol'

So does that also include a potential view on alternative approaches auch as Host mobility with HIP (Host Identity Protocol) as described in ( or as the LISP mobility solution ( where use of (soon to be) standard (lightweight) LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol) functions and services to provide scalable mobility for LISP MNs is envisaged?

Thanks and best regards

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [] Im Auftrag von jouni korhonen
Gesendet: Sonntag, 18. Dezember 2011 23:21
Cc: Laganier; jouni korhonen; Jari Arkko
Betreff: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter


Based of the "feedback" can I assume folks are mostly happy with the current text?

- Jouni

On Dec 14, 2011, at 10:54 AM, jouni korhonen wrote:

> 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 <>
>     Jouni Korhonen <>
> Internet Area Directors:
>     Ralph Droms <>
>     Jari Arkko <>
> Internet Area Advisor:
>     Jari Arkko <>
> Mailing Lists:
>     General Discussion:
>     To Subscribe:
>     Archive:  
> 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 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. 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. 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