Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes (was: FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting)
Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 22 March 2011 20:27 UTC
Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 0599928C170 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>;
Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B-rVyJrl7uYF for
<mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com
[74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40FD28C13D for
<mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb42 with SMTP id 42so7887219wyb.31 for <mext@ietf.org>;
Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding;
bh=w+g6ljfuahNLj9n5VLeKVEoKPOjAw65vI0wmocVa+og=;
b=TJsTjmxgVpRtHQW2I+/A/yyrHlANRuc28tZ8RPf6cBGAhX7nelJ8/uKmf3aMdC5gCh
lm6/9uPZSSGkglJTmNoiZ/4hfV36S5zjwi4uDKLwgSpD/vjVrc/QjmoyAvaDnNV/kI8u
a/p/XdeBjha+xsyq1YlM+URmt/JO2OIPkU9Ic=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
b=dPBvD6LxlwHjpg4HuLahikriqI8ADICTYPLLTPoQtRMqbgRz4uNV85BmygPCtO21dB
eb18pGuiLYmVTJo13BsWIvcy6pC8k1K39iOlDrdHAfFjnMK25eDHxNFi1zPDEt/BjYAB
vzVOybUCC03ZIO8KelJ+YesdosuCkIMbmbKFs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.60.193 with SMTP id u43mr6523472wec.103.1300825723623;
Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.89.205 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es> <4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>
<4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es> <4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com>
<4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es> <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com>
<4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es> <4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:28:43 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes (was:
FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting)
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:27:14 -0000
Alex: What is your point? You're not happy with the agenda? Please be specific. --julien On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 22/03/2011 17:45, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit : >> >> El 22/03/11 16:37, Alexandru Petrescu escribió: >>> >>> Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit : >>>> >>>> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non >>>> MIP related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to >>>> just one single agenda item... >>> >>> You asked one, I told one. >>> >>> Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS is >>> not a MIP6 Type Code, etc.) >>> >> >> you mean the presentation of the draft entitled "Negotiation of >> security protocol for Mobile IPv6 operation" which in its 7 pages >> mentions the term Mobile IP over 24 times????, really? > > Yes, I meant so, and here is why. > > If I understand it correctly, HAC seems to be a new box with two > distinctive parts: one running a non-Mobile IP protocol (TLS tunnelled > Req/Resp, i.e. non Mobile IPv6) and another part which runs pure Mobile > IPv6 (BU/BAck). > > Me too: my draft's MR has two distinctive parts: one running a > non-Mobile IP protocol (ICMPv6 extensions for prefixes, i.e. non Mobile > IPv6) and another part which runs pure Mobile IPv6 (BU/BAck with NEMOv6) > ("MR" is all over the draft and its definition is that it runs Mobile > IPv6 with NEMOv6.) > > (On another hand, e.g. draft-hampel-mext-ro-without-ha-00, another > agenda item, seems indeed to be modifications to the Mobile IPv6 > protocol (new HoA Support Mobility Option in Mobility Header). That > seems more appropriate to the MEXT agenda if MEXT is defined as being > Mobile IPv6-only work.) > > That is why I think some items seem little appropriate to the agenda. > > Or maybe MEXT is not only about modifications to Mobile IPv6 but it is > also something else, at which point more agenda items should be accepted > in all fairness. > >>>> great, it seems we are making good progress here. >>>> >>>> about the particular item you mention: i understand this is the >>>> motivation for the dmm work and understanding the perceived >>>> probelms is needed to figure out how we can use MIP to deal with >>>> the perceived problem. >>>> >>>> >>>> However, if people think this is out of scope for MEXT, i am fine >>>> to discuss whether we should keep it in the agenda or not >>> >>> I think it is worth discussing how much relationship do the >>> current agenda items have to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, and whether >>> that relationship is as much as other agenda requests. >> >> sure, that is what we are doing, but if your point is that >> draft-patil-mext-sec-negotiate-00.txt is as closely related to the >> MIPv6 protocol as IRON, then i am not sure we may be able to find a >> common ground for understanding each other.... > > I am trying to understand this. > > I look at ironmike (IRON and MOBIKE) and it reads like using IKE for > supporting mobile nodes changing their addresses. I think it could be > used together with Mobile IPv6: use MOBIKE mobility when in an IRON > domain or otherwise use Mobile IPv6 when handing over to the > non-IRON parts of Internet. > > (I read "IRON tradespace" as I read "SDO") > > I may not understand ironmike correctly, I just suppose. > > IMHO. > > Alex > [*] draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01 >> >> Regards, marcelo >> >> >>> >>> Alex >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> El 22/03/11 15:35, Alexandru Petrescu escribió: >>>>> >>>>> Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about >>>>>> the Mobile IP protocol. >>>>> >>>>> The 6th. >>>>> >>>>> Alex >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribió: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marcelo, Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's >>>>>>> request of agenda item. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The current agenda >>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related >>>>>>> to the Mobile IPv6 protocol per se. Additionally, agenda's >>>>>>> DMM core item has a discussion which does not seem to >>>>>>> converge on the use of Mobile IPv6. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of >>>>>>> MEXT doing _only_ Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I >>>>>>> see it today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is >>>>>>> related to IKE which is related to Mobile IPv6 security. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly. I >>>>>>> am saying this because... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do >>>>>>> (RA-based routing) for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run >>>>>>> Mobile IPv6 but need something else than Mobile IPv6 Type >>>>>>> Codes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning, >>>>>>> thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alex >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Fred, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is >>>>>>>> limited to the the Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we >>>>>>>> decline your request. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, marcelo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien), >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach >>>>>>>>> to mobility management known as IRON: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been >>>>>>>>> published as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing >>>>>>>>> Research Group: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are >>>>>>>>> documented in the following active Internet drafts: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet >>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal >>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00 >>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present >>>>>>>>> the approach. Please let me know if that works for >>>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: >>>>>>>>>> mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] >>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun Sent: Wednesday, >>>>>>>>>> March 09, 2011 8:32 AM To: mext Subject: [MEXT] >>>>>>>>>> Agenda requests for Prague meeting >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to >>>>>>>>>> the chairs. please note that we are meeting on >>>>>>>>>> friday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ 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 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >
- [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting marcelo bagnulo braun
- [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting Templin, Fred L
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting Templin, Fred L
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting Scott W Brim
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting pierrick.seite
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting Basavaraj.Patil
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 prot… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 prot… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 prot… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 prot… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 prot… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 prot… Thierry Ernst
- Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 prot… Julien Laganier
- Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 prot… Thierry Ernst
- Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 prot… Julien Laganier