Re: [MEXT] MEXT Digest, Vol 54, Issue 12

Peer Azmat Shah <peer.azmat@yahoo.co.uk> Thu, 22 December 2011 05:25 UTC

Return-Path: <peer.azmat@yahoo.co.uk>
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 10EAC11E80F4 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:25:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, MANGLED_SAVELE=2.3]
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 c-s-HmQ8LUmu for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm13-vm0.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com (nm13-vm0.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com [217.146.183.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 355AB11E80EE for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:25:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [217.146.183.180] by nm13.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Dec 2011 05:25:26 -0000
Received: from [217.146.183.160] by tm11.bullet.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Dec 2011 05:25:26 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Dec 2011 05:25:26 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 787497.23080.bm@omp1001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 17420 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Dec 2011 05:25:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1324531526; bh=dYGPqlmdBGZLsBOuNdp4Zy8KXOQtpPYpFMuvPVja+5Q=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fL+UY5NG9CpLGnIb/nBYXm4E8cgASO9wyBD5lLbEQf8hOPuh8WxgKdQ+wlht5zG9Cd9k1qyH+2IsKoDqFxBIDhK1OanLAVk1NjBVCyFBwV8Y97ZMQx+8+TQ1Dr67WfmXiK/YWRjUoUcWzklbooL9FGU0uaz1SR/81tpWMUOXP94=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=iw1rJsAOiYlnkM4M/4VslyaHQxhYJO5s6QdPJc+ebj6yisV/JLNyUnrrvd9YvPMy9ZHfNX99B2QSaaYgnyb3Mjp+pmeL4C2ByMaf+NUDkTdTfCWUukH3828E7PbMdIKhS6xtGAiznwroK7Rok7gxrs/XoSzPNfmpTry2f95uzEg=;
X-YMail-OSG: 4TJfj9cVM1kaRAjMRzlhdMEhCzTgwQ8jbHxt31D4mYaX9U0 Xiwx.0_D0owJ.4xGfm12DHfTIYAgmReWABwVXS9nIQXGJEPCTJ47QfvmF7MM w10mfpHPgJcsDWl1R3xjWhumrTM6eu4VL65eoyPVw9CopE18PTz55udVXG6X uXkKUhVFTUVM_b5BDe7Ps2tPRjZhgTX2BW_8SGgR3pXIGjVO_5jWO5oOlBCd 6e2OIXuUuksHREJszYVwwELWgFSwXaQ48pAuVuRJdvQcbdNTu62YSwT_ik2i XfSh1f9c9PGNRyBUiZG95xgnalypte5ng1vRtRxv.oZMRE_9BB8yFes2ai58 HSPTnMXmLfLw63ZkiCUm6CN2JxtZJ8_jnnq1e1A..zo2ymTnUGdDBsr.lIbg vqS170C7imAqrykM-
Received: from [175.142.125.110] by web28212.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:25:26 GMT
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698
References: <mailman.109.1324411221.2603.mext@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1324531526.16224.YahooMailNeo@web28212.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:25:26 +0000 (GMT)
From: Peer Azmat Shah <peer.azmat@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.109.1324411221.2603.mext@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="394961386-255435238-1324531526=:16224"
Subject: Re: [MEXT] MEXT Digest, Vol 54, Issue 12
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Peer Azmat Shah <peer.azmat@yahoo.co.uk>
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: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:25:34 -0000

In my opinion, the term " traffic is distributed in an optimal way" seems ambiguous. 
From this statement, one can get confused, that aim of DMM is to distribute the whole data traffic along-with handling mobility in a distributed manner.

One thing more: when we talk about DMM, then it means that we have to make changes in the network (routers, gateways, access points, base stations) so that they can handle mobility in a combined effort, not relying on a single MAP. But in 2nd paragraph of charter, it is written "either host- or network-based" means that new solutions can be either network based or host based (E2E). How, a mobility solution that works in a distributed manner can be host based (E2E)? It will be a network based solution. 

 
regards

---------------

Peer Azmat Shah


1.  Ph.D Fellow | Department of CIS | Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia | +60 14 345 60202.  Lecturer | Department of CS | COMSATS University of Science & Technology, Pakistan | +92 321 582 2507




________________________________
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:29:53 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>;
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>;
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>;,
    mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
Message-ID: <4EF04781.3080700@piuha.net>;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I think this looks very good, but I would still take into account Pierrick's suggested edits, and I think we have to be far more specific about that "can be transparent to any underlying mobility protocol part", because it confuses me. And per questions on the list, it seems to confuse other people too.

Suggested edits below. I have sent this version to the IESG and IAB, but I expect that the chairs may produce additional refined versions.

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 for
              consideration 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



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:52:15 +0200
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>;
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>;
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>;,
    mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
Message-ID: <563F11DB-2F08-40AC-A788-70CBE9EFE745@gmail.com>;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Jari,


On Dec 20, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> I think this looks very good, but I would still take into account Pierrick's suggested edits, and I think we have to be far more specific about that "can be transparent to any underlying mobility protocol part", because it confuses me. And per questions on the list, it seems to confuse other people too.

Thanks for the edit. The "transparent" part was definitely poorly worded as it was meant for bettering the use of CoAs.. But wording ended up far too open ended. The new text expresses the original intent clearly.

I also agree with Pierrick's comments that are now also included.

- Jouni


> 
> Suggested edits below. I have sent this version to the IESG and IAB, but I expect that the chairs may produce additional refined versions.
> 
> 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 for
>             consideration 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
> 



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:57:44 +0100
From: <pierrick.seite@orange.com>;
To: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>,    <mext@ietf.org>;
Cc: julien.ietf@gmail.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net
Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
Message-ID:
    <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C46202169B1B@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>;
    
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Jouni,

It seems that I've some trouble with my mail box.... Please see below my comments sent on Friday...

Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De?: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> jouni korhonen
> Envoy??: dimanche 18 d?cembre 2011 23:21
> ??: mext@ietf.org
> Cc?: julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier; jouni korhonen; Jari Arkko
> Objet?: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Based of the "feedback" can I assume folks are mostly happy with the
> current text?
> 
> - Jouni
> 


---------------------------------------- 

Hi Jouni & Julien,

This charter looks good. However, please see inline few suggestions for modifications.

Thanks,
Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part 
> de jouni korhonen Envoy? : mercredi 14 d?cembre 2011 09:54 ? : 
> mext@ietf.org Cc : julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier; jouni korhonen; 
> Jari Arkko Objet : [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
> 
> 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.
> 
>   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]. 

This sentence gives the impression that extensions to MIP/PMIP will be necessary, i.e. here, the charter seems put extensions as a requirement (I don't think it is the goal :-)). It appears to be inconsistent with the two steps approach suggested by the work items: best current practices (without protocol modification), then, if necessary, specify extensions. So, I'd suggest to reword as follows:

The protocol solutions should be based on existing IP mobility
  Protocols and related mechanisms, 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.
> 

I suggest to add the following statement:

Mobile hosts/routers should not assume always-on mobility support.

>   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.
> 

IMHO, the gap analysis should not be part of the best current practices. The BCP may stress some limitations but an exhaustive gap analysis should be the motivation for protocols extensions. So, I suggest to rearrange work items as follows: 

   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 of each such
    approach with respect to fulfillment of the solution requirements. If limitations are,
    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.

As explained above, I think the gap analysis should not be part of the BCP. So, this goal should be:

   Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Best practices' 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.

Extensions should be motivated by a complete gap analysis. So, this goal should be:

Nov 2012 - Gap analysis and evaluation for the need of 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


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:54:13 +0100
From: Conny Larsson <conny.larsson@ericsson.com>;
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>;, "julien.ietf@gmail.com
    Laganier"    <julien.ietf@gmail.com>;
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>;, "mext@ietf.org"; <mext@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
Message-ID: <4EF0D9D5.2070609@ericsson.com>;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed

Hi Jouni, Julien

I believe the charter looks good but I would like to ask you if 
deployment scenarios are covered by the charter or not (I'm thinking of 
a Informational RFC)?

Let me be a bit more specific. When discussing DMM (in a 3GPP 
perspective) with people I  get the impression that many operators are 
interested in the topic but that they have very few peering points. They 
are not always interested (or they do not see the need) in deploying 
more peering points since they are expensive. Perhaps the reason for 
this is related to the current hierarchical architecture and will change 
with a more distributed architecture.

So what do you think? Is there a need for this kind of document?

Best Regards
Conny


On 2011-12-14 09:54, 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<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 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
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>




------------------------------

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext


End of MEXT Digest, Vol 54, Issue 12
************************************