Re: [MEXT] [mif] Multiple interfaces problems in MEXT and mif

makes sense to me


Marc Blanchet escribió:
> marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the current MEXT charter there are several items about supporting
>> multiple interfaces, including the following two:
>>
>> - A document explaining the motivations for a node using multiple
>> interfaces and the scenarios where it may end up with multiple
>> global addresses on its interfaces [Informational]
>>
>> - An analysis document explaining what are the limitations for
>> mobile hosts using multiple simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home
>> Agent addresses using Mobile IPv6, whether issues are specific to
>> Mobile IPv6 or not [Informational].
>>
>> I think this is very similar to the scope of one of you documents at
>> least, so i would find very strange that the same work is chartered in
>> two different working groups.
>>
>> Moreover, we do have wg documents for these two, but we find very hard
>> to find reviewers for those, which makes me think that there is not much
>> interest on these. So, if you find a more motivated crew to do the work,
>> that would be great, we can either do it in mext or soemwhere else, if
>> people feels that needs to be done, but that is certainly not the
>> feeling i am getting from the input in mext
>>     
>
> to me, the main difference is that the 'multiple interface' issue is not
> bound to mobility, and more specifically to mobility protocols
> (mobileIPv4, mobileipv6, nemo, ...).
>
> Therefore, the MIF work is not scoping about mobility protocols and
> shall not require mobility protocols.
>
> I would see that if some part of the MIF work is looking at the mobility
> protocols, then these should be then "transfered" to MEXT.
>
> Marc.
>
>   
>> Regards, marcelo
>>
>>
>>
>> Hong Yong-Geun escribió:
>>     
>>> Hi, all in MEXT and mif.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> In IETF mif (Multiple Interface) mailing list
>>> (_https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif_
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>),
>>>
>>> we now discuss the host which would like to use multiple interfaces.
>>>
>>> I understand that MEXT WG is also related to the use of multiple
>>> interfaces of a host
>>> using Mobile IPv6 or a mobile router using NEMO Basic Support and
>>> their variants
>>>
>>> MEXT WG is focuing on monami6 related topic (multiple CoA, Multiple
>>> HoA, and Multple HA, etc.,)
>>> and extedning Mobile IPv6 and NEMO for these, but mif is not related
>>> to this direction.
>>> In mif, source address selection, routing and DNS control protocol are
>>> consideration items
>>> due to multiple interfaces of a host.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> For mif’s scope, Jari Arkko made some comments and classification of
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> _http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg00050.html_
>>>
>>> Among these classification which includes access selection, split DNS,
>>> configuration reconciliation,
>>> routing, address selection, tunnel multihoming, and the communication
>>> way between the host and
>>> the network about their policies regarding all of the above, Jari said
>>> that access selection is already
>>> coverd in RFC 5113 and tunnel multihoming is already covered in MEXT
>>> WG work items.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> At monami6 WG in 64th IETF meetinng, I submitted and presented two
>>> Internet Drafts.
>>>
>>> - Analysis of multiple interfaces in a Mobile Node
>>>
>>> _http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hong-multipleif-mn-pb-statement-00.txt_
>>>
>>> - Virtual network interface for multiple interfaces in a Mobile node
>>> using Mobile IPv6
>>>
>>> _http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hong-virtualif-mn-mipv6-00.txt_
>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hong-virtualif-mn-mipv6-00.txt>
>>>
>>> Because these two drafts were not in the monami6 WG’s scope and
>>> virtual network interface draft was
>>>
>>> implementation specific, there were not adoped in monami6 WG’s work
>>> items. The intentions of two drafts
>>> are supporting multiple interfaces of a host without extending Mobile
>>> IPv6/NEMO.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> I think that multiple interfaces problems of a host are related to
>>> both Mobile IP/NEMO specific issues and
>>> general network issues. Mobile IP/NEMO specific issues are related to
>>> extending of Mobile IP/NEMO and
>>> these are already studied in MEXT WG and general network issues which
>>> were not related to
>>> Mobile IP/NEMO could be studied in mif. As same manner, I think that
>>> my drafts could be discussed and
>>> developed in mif. In the first draft (Analysis document), I classified
>>> multiple interface problems into
>>> Mobile IPv6-sepcific issues, General network issues, and heterogeneous
>>> environment issues.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Including Hui Deng in mif, with regarding to these drafts, they want
>>> to hear comments from MEXT WG’s point of view,
>>> because it seems that these drafts are quite related to monami6/MEXT
>>> WG. So, I ask MEXT to review whether there are
>>>
>>> some overlap between MEXT works and my drafts or not.
>>>
>>> It is appreciate to give comments.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>>
>>> Yong-Geun.
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> mif mailing list
>> mif@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>>     
>
>
>   

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