Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter

[<[e-mail]>]

Hello Stefano,
 
Thanks for your comments and your feedback. I agree with your argument but on the other hand, IMHO, the duration of the tunnel existence is also a resource consuming phenomena in which resources are reserved on both ends of the tunnel and the tunneling/de-tunneling of packets (in both directions) will not only add extra overhead but also incur processing delay and this will impact real time communication sessions and fast moving users (with smaller dwell times) in terms of jitter and delays. 
I very much agree that a holistic and across-the-board approach towards optimizing the tunneling function is required (so that MIPv6 can also be optimised) but I would also suggest that this aspect (of finding ways to reduce tunneling duration) should also be made part of the new charter, as I see FMIPv6 a good candidate for providing near-seamless handovers for "fast moving users".
 
take care
 
Zarrar Yousaf
Communication Networks Institute,
Dortmund University of Technology (TU Dortmund)
Germany
 


Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Proposed new charterDate: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:01:17 -0700From: [e-mail]: [e-mail]; [e-mail]: [e-mail]




Dear Zarraf,
thanks for the email. Interesting draft. My understanding of the tunnel optimization in the charter is however slightly different. In fact the charter refers to "negative impact on the protocol efficiency which is translated in the data packet size, bandwidth usage and battery power consumption. Therefore, a mechanism which enables reducing the tunneling overhead would benefit the mobile node and optimize the bandwidth usage. The MIPSHOP WG will standardize such a mechanism." Therefore the charter refers to optimizations to the way tunneling is performed to e.g. reduce the size of the packets. IMO it does not refer to the temporary tunnel created in FMIPv6 between the PAR and the NAR, but to the tunneling present through the whole connection.
Cheers,
Stefano


From: [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]: Wed 3/12/2008 1:32 AMTo: Frank Xia; Vijay DevarapalliCc: 'Mipshop'Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter
Hello, Regarding Tunnel optimization in FMIPv6, a draft has already been submitted called "Proactive Bindings in FMIPv6" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-yousaf-ietf-mipshop-pbfmipv6/) in which a proposal regarding the reduction of the tunnel duration has already been proposed. At the moment we are performing simulation and measurement tests and the initial results are  very encouraging, however i will be able to share more details after about one month. BR Zarrar Yousaf

> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:38:52 -0500> From: [e-mail]> To: [e-mail]> CC: [e-mail]> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter> > Hi Vijay> > Please see my reply..> > BR> Frank> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[e-mail]>> To: "Frank Xia" <[e-mail]>> Cc: "'Mipshop'" <[e-mail]>> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:29 PM> Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter> > > > Frank Xia wrote:> > > Hi Vijay> > > > > > For Tunnel Optimization, why should we limit in Mobile IPv6 and HMIP6?> > > > It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list of protocols that> > tunnel.> Frank=>IMO, it is a little bit ambiguous. For example,> why is HMIP6 is highlighted? why isn't FMIP6 highlighted?> It will be helpful if you make it clearer.> > > > > > I think it is also possible for PMIPv6 and Mobile IPv4.> > > > We have not taken on any work related to Mobile IPv4 so far.> > > > Vijay> > > > > > > > BR> > > Frank> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[e-mail]>> > > To: "'Mipshop'" <[e-mail]>> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 5:12 PM> > > Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Proposed new charter> > > > > > > > >> Hello,> > >>> > >> The MEXT working group has asked to take on some additional work.> > >> This is about a mechanism to reduce the tunneling overhead due to> > >> MIPv6 and HMIPv6. So we modified the charter to include this work> > >> too. Here is the revised charter. Please review.> > >>> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > >>> > >> Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization (MIPSHOP)> > >>> > >> Description of Working Group:> > >>> > >> Mobile IPv6 enables IPv6 mobile nodes to continue using a given> > >> "home address" in spite of changes in its point of attachment to> > >> the network. These changes may cause delay, packet loss, and also> > >> represent overhead traffic on the network. The MIPSHOP WG has so> > >> far worked on two technologies to address these issues.> > >> Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) reduces the amount and latency> > >> of signaling between a MN, its Home Agent and one or more> > >> correspondent nodes. Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6)> > >> reduces packet loss by providing fast IP connectivity as soon as> > >> the mobile node establishes a new point of attachment at a new> > >> link.> > >>> > >> The MIPSHOP WG will continue to work on HMIPv6 and FMIPv6, and> > >> the necessary extensions to improve these protocols. The MIPSHOP> > >> WG will also identify missing components that are required for> > >> deploying these protocols and standardize the necessary extensions.> > >> The WG will also address interworking of these protocols with other> > >> mobility management protocols in the IETF, including network-based> > >> mobility management protocols.> > >>> > >> The IEEE 802.21 Media Independent Handoff (MIH) working group aims> > >> at providing services to assist with handoffs between heterogeneous> > >> link-layer technologies, and across IP subnet boundaries. MIH> > >> services can be delivered through link-layer specific solutions> > >> and/or through a "layer 3 or above" protocol. MIPSHOP will define> > >> the delivery of information for MIH services for this latter case.> > >> A L3 based mechanism to identify a valid information server is also> > >> required. The MIPSHOP will work on developing a protocol for> > >> transport of MIH services information and mechanisms for discovering> > >> the MIH server. Security for the transport of MIH information will> > >> also be addressed.> > >>> > >> The widespread use of different forms of IP tunneling mechanisms> > >> in mobile environment, e.g., MIPv6, HMIPv6, has a negative impact> > >> on the protocol efficiency which is translated in the data packet> > >> size, bandwidth usage and battery power consumption. Therefore, a> > >> mechanism which enables reducing the tunneling overhead would> > >> benefit the mobile node and optimize the bandwidth usage. The> > >> MIPSHOP WG will standardize such a mechanism.> > >>> > >> The MOBOPTS Research Group in the IRTF is chartered to work on> > >> optimizations related to Mobile IPv6 and IP handoffs among other> > >> things. The MIPSHOP WG will take mature proposals from the MOBOPTS> > >> group and standardize them in the IETF on a case-by-case basis.> > >>> > >> The MIPSHOP WG will also consider and standardize optimizations for> > >> the Mobile IPv6 protocol and IP mobility in general.> > >>> > >> Scope of MIPSHOP:> > >>> > >> The working group will:> > >>> > >> 1. Complete the current set of documents with the IESG> > >> - HMIPv6 (draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis)> > >> - FMIPv6 (draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis)> > >> - FMIPv6 over IEEE 802.16e (draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e)> > >> - FMIPv6 over 3G CDMA 2000 (draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh)> > >> - MIH problem statement (draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps)> > >>> > >> 2. FMIPv6 Mobile Node - Access Router security using the AAA> > >> infrastructure> > >>> > >> Currently MIPSHOP has produced a standards track protocol for> > >> setting up security between the mobile node and access router> > >> for security FMIPv6 signaling messages. However, the protocol> > >> depends on SeND (Secure Neighbor Discovery) to be available on> > >> the mobile node and the access router. An alternate mechanism> > >> that leverages the AAA infrastructure is required. Many target> > >> systems where FMIPv6 is likely to be used use a AAA> > >> infrastructure to authenticate and authorize network access.> > >>> > >> 3. Prefix Management for point-to-point links> > >>> > >> Using FMIPv6 over point-to-points like requires some additional> > >> considerations with respect to managing and allocating prefixes> > >> for the mobile node on these point-to-point links. Therefore> > >> the WG will work on a BCP to document these considerations.> > >>> > >> 4. Use of FMIPv6 with Proxy Mobile IPv6> > >>> > >> Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network-based mobility> > >> management protocol where a node in the access network, called> > >> the Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) handles mobility on behalf of> > >> the mobile node. It has been proposed to use FMIPv6 to> > >> optimize the handover in terms of reducing the packet loss and> > >> transferring relevant context from the old MAG to the new MAG.> > >> The working group will work on specifying FMIPv6 extensions to> > >> enable fast handovers for PMIPv6.> > >>> > >> 5. Work on protocols and extensions for transporting information> > >> related to IEEE 802.21:> > >>> > >> The work includes the layer 3 protocol for transporting MIH> > >> related information and DHCP and DNS extensions for discovery> > >> the information servers.> > >>> > >> 6. IP Tunneling Optimization> > >>> > >> Work on a mechanism to reduce the tunneling overhead associated> > >> with protocols like Mobile IPv6 and HMIPv6.> > >>> > >> 7. Standardize mature proposals from the MOBOPTS IRTF Group> > >>> > >>> > >> Goals and Milestones:> > >>> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-hmip-xx.txt> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on > > >> draft-ietf-mipshop-lmm-requirements-XX.txt> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-xx.txt> > >> Done Discuss Last Call comments and security analyses at IETF 58> > >> Done Submit draft draft-ietf-mipshop-lmm-requirements-XX.txt to IESG > > >> for publication as Informational> > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-xx.txt to IESG for publication > > >> as Experimental> > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-hmip-xx.txt to IESG for publication > > >> as Experimental> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-80211fh-xx.txt > > >> for Informational> > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-80211fh-xx.txt to IESG for > > >> publication as Informational> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-XX.txt> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps> > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba to the IESG for publication > > >> as Proposed Standard> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send> > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-mis-ps to the IESG for publication as > > >> Informational RFC> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc4041bis> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e> > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-rfc4068bis to the IESG for > > >> publication as Proposed Standard> > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-send to the IESG for > > >> publication as Proposed Standard> > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh to IESG for publication as > > >> Informational RFC> > >> Done Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e to IESG for publication as > > >> Informational RFC> > >> Done Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mih-support> > >> Apr 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-4140bis to the IESG for > > >> publication as Proposed Standard> > >> Apr 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-mih-support to the IESG for > > >> publication as Proposed Standard> > >> May 2008 Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery> > >> May 2008 Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options> > >> Jun 2008 Working group last call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-ptp> > >> Jun 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dns-discovery to the IESG for > > >> publication as Proposed Standard> > >> Jun 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options to the IESG for > > >> publication as Proposed Standard> > >> Jul 2008 Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6> > >> Jul 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-ptp to the IESG for > > >> publication as Best Current Practice> > >> Aug 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6 to the IESG for > > >> publication as Proposed Standard> > >> Aug 2008 Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-aaa-key> > >> Oct 2008 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-aaa-key to the IESG for > > >> publication as Proposed Standard> > >> Nov 2008 Working Group Last call on > > >> draft-ietf-mipshop-tunneling-optimization> > >> Jan 2009 Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-tunneling-optimization to the the > > >> IESG> > >>> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------> > >>> > >> Vijay> > >> _______________________________________________> > >> Mipshop mailing list> > >> [e-mail]> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop> > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________> Mipshop mailing list> [e-mail]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. Play now! 
_________________________________________________________________
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
http://biggestloser.msn.com/

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop