RE: [Mip6] Draft agenda of MIP6 WG meeting at IETF61

["Koojana Kuladinithi" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Just to remind you all about the history of this issue: We had several
discussions in mip6 ML regarding multiple interface management based on
several related drafts. Later, we agreed to address this issue with a PB
draft to show the possibilities of using multiple interfaces in mip6,
before going in to the details of how to do it.

I too agree with this (well, I "third it"). We have a few public
projects in which this capability is needed. 

So, I too agree that the WG should think about bringing this topic up.

Kind regards

Koojana

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>Behalf Of Thierry Ernst
>Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 9:03 AM
>To: [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]; Ryuji Wakikawa; Nicolas 
>Montavont; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [Mip6] Draft agenda of MIP6 WG meeting at IETF61
>
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>Of course, I second this. I would like to add that the ability 
>to manage multiple interfaces is very important, particularly 
>for mobile nodes. Now that the important work on the MIPv6 
>spec is behind us, I think it's the right time to bring the 
>"multiple interfaces management" issue back on the table, 
>before people implement non-compatible solutions.
>
>Note that the ability to manage multiple interfaces is 
>probably the feature that would motivate the need for MIP6 (I 
>cannot see the need to perform MIP6 between 2 WIFI hot-spots 
>since the opportunity seldomly appear; however, I would 
>definitely use MIP6 on a daily-base if I could switch between 
>WIFI and 3G|AirH|B-mobile|GPRS.
>
>So, it's a good timing to question if the MIP6 working group 
>wants to add this as a WG item. If yes, we need more thought 
>on the problem statement and to discuss the potential 
>interactions with the NEMO WG (cf 
>draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues). If not, we may seriously 
>think about setting up a new WG, but I would rather leave it 
>as a second option if the conclusion of the meeting is that 
>MIP6 is not the right WG for it.
>
>We probably need a 10mins discussion in order to reach a 
>conclusion (I don't think we need to discuss the motivations, 
>the existing drafts do it already).
>
>Thierry.
>
>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:47:21 +0200
>Nicolas Montavont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Basavaraj and folks,
>> 
>> We just published a new version of our draft on Multihoming analysis 
>> in
>> MIPv6. You can find the new version at
>>  
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-montavont-mobileip-mu
>ltihoming-pb-statement-02.txt
>> 
>> This draft analyses the MIP6 behavior when a MN is multihomed and
>> classifies the different cases when a MN is multihomed. It 
>completes the 
>> generic draft 
>> 
>(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ernst-generic-goals-
>and-benefits-00.txt) 
>> which explains the goals and benefits we can expect from the 
>multihoming 
>> of host.
>> 
>> It would be good to have feedback from the working group on 
>this work.
>> 
>> We would like to request a short slot to discuss the interest of the
>> Working Group on the multihoming. It is a long time that 
>several drafts 
>> deal with MIPv6 and multihoming. Our two drafts could be the 
>starting 
>> point to add a new item to the WG charter. These two drafts 
>may define 
>> the problem statement of MN multhoming.
>> 
>> Once more, please don't hesitate to comment both the drafts and the
>> proposition to add a new item in the WG charter.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Nicolas
>> 
>> [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> ><Draft Agenda - 10/27>
>> >
>> >Time and Date of WG meeting at IETF61: TBD
>> >Duration: 2.5 hours
>> >
>> >Agenda
>> >======
>> >
>> >1. Agenda, Bluesheets, Note-takers and Jabber scribes	5 Mins
>> >
>> >2. WG status update		    Chairs		10 Mins
>> >
>> >3. MIP6 Operation with IKEv2 and the revised IPsec Arch.  10 Mins
>> >   I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-00.txt
>> >   Vijay Devarapalli
>> >
>> >
>> >4. a. Using IPsec to protect signaling between MN and CN   5 Mins
>> >      I-D: draft-dupont-mipv6-cn-ipsec-01.txt
>> >   b. Care-of address test procedure using a state cookie  5 Mins
>> >      I-D: Annex of draft-dupont-mipv6-cn-ipsec-01.txt
>> >   Francis Dupont
>> >
>> >5. MIPv6 Authorization and Configuration based on EAP    10 Mins
>> >   I-D: draft-giaretta-mip6-authorization-eap-02.txt
>> >   Giaretta Gerardo      
>> >
>> >6. Application Master Session Key (AMSK) for Mobile IPv6   5 Mins
>> >   I-D: draft-giaretta-mip6-amsk-00.txt
>> >   Giaretta Gerardo   
>> >
>> >7. Goals for AAA-HA interface				
>  10 Mins
>> >   I-D: draft-giaretta-mip6-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt
>> >   Giaretta Gerardo   
>> >
>> >8. AAA Mobile IPv6 Application Framework	          10 Mins
>> >   I-D: draft-yegin-mip6-aaa-fwk-00.txt
>> >   Alper Yegin
>> >
>> >9. Diameter Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping Application using 
>PANA  10 Mins
>> >    I-D: draft-jee-mip6-bootstrap-pana-00.txt
>> >    Junghoon Jee
>> >
>> >10. Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping Architecture Using DHCP	
>  15 Mins
>> >   I-D: draft-ohba-mip6-boot-arch-dhcp-00
>> >   Yoshihiro Ohba
>> >
>> >11. Precomputable Binding Management Key Kbm for Mobile IPv6 5 Mins
>> >    I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-precfgkbm-01.txt
>> >    Charles Perkins
>> >
>> >12. Improvement of Return Routability Protocol		
>   10 Mins
>> >    I-D: draft-qiu-mip6-rr-improvement-00.txt
>> >    Jianying ZHOU
>> >
>> >
>> >13. Next steps			Chairs			
>   5 Mins
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Mip6 mailing list
>> >[e-mail]
>> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
>> >  
>> >
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mip6 mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
>


_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6