Re: [Monami6] updated goal / agenda

[Nicolas Montavont <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chan-Wah

Chan-Wah Ng wrote:

>Hello Nicolas,
>
>On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 17:27 -0400, Nicolas Montavont wrote:
>  
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>I would like to add some items to be discussed during the BOF. I would 
>>like to first have your opinion before adding them to the agenda
>>
>>    - Should we consider MMI 
>>(http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/~montavont/ietf/draft-montavont-mobileip-mmi-02.txt) 
>>as a potantial document on which the working group can focus? 
>>    
>>
>
>I feel that it is a bit jumping the gun to start talking about specific
>documents. I am sure your actual intention is to discuss on specific
>area Monami6 should include, and the mmi drafts happen to cover some
>areas in which you feel Monami6 should investigate.
>
>So let's talk about these areas instead of focusing on a specific draft.
>  
>
Yes, I think you are right here. But as some ideas on what we want to do 
in Monami6 are in MMI draft, I wanted to point out the draft.

>  
>
>>This I-D 
>>proposes different issues that can be actually split into several:
>>        - How to use MIP when a MN has several interfaces (without 
>>modifying the spec). Basically it is based on a specific use of MIP and 
>>on a special use of HoAs.
>>    
>>
>
>Isn't this specifically what Monami6 is about? It is, IMHO, already in
>the current draft charter.
>
>  
>
>>        - The document gives a classification of the granularity of the 
>>mobility. I think this can be moved to draft-ernst-goals-and-benefits 
>>since this is our main problem statement draft.
>>       - The document proposes solutions to each of the proposed 
>>granularity. Each of them could be investigated.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I agree that we should explore the granularity.
>
>  
>
>>    - I think that it would be very good to have another document 
>>describing the scenarios. I see in each I-Ds the description of one, or 
>>two scenarios, but it would be nice to have some mobility scenarios 
>>defined somewhere. In draft-ernst-goals-amd-benefits, we have some real 
>>life scenarios, and in draft-montavont-mobileip-pb-statement we define a 
>>taxonomy to represent topology. What I propose here is to produce a 
>>document which describes mobility-related scenarios, as well as 
>>theoritical scenarios, as real-life scenarios. This would help to ensure 
>>that all of our solutions apply in all mobility cases
>>    
>>
>
>Agree, I think separating out the deployment scenario would be helpful.
>
>  
>
>>    - Our relation with other WGs (such as MIP6, NEMO, Mobopts, 
>>SHIM6...) should be highlighted. To initiate that discussion, I would 
>>propose to schedule the presentation of draft-bagnulo-shim6-mip-00.txt
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I agree.   Since this is the first BoF session, its good to get a
>concrete idea of how Monami6 relates to other existing WG or BoF, as it
>would  certainly help in defining the Monami6 charter.
>
>
>  
>
>>    - It is now a long time that people are working on flow movement / 
>>flow filtering for MIP6. Potantial solutions for this are
>>       _draft-nomadv6-mobileip-filters_ Filters for Mobile IPv6 Bindings 
>>(NOMADv6) [version -02 Expired] 
>><http://www.comnets.uni-bremen.de/%7Ekoo/draft-nomadv6-mobileip-filters-02.txt> 
>>
>>_        draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering_ Home Agent Filtering for 
>>Mobile IPv6 [TXT] 
>><http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/%7Emontavont/ietf/draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering-v6-00.txt> 
>>[HTML] 
>><http://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/%7Emontavont/ietf/draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering-v6-00.html> 
>>(expired)
>>        _I-D from Hesham Soliman on flow filtering
>>
>>_
>>Can we try to merge these solutions and add this to the goal of Monami6: 
>>propose a solution to deal with flow movement?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>If its relevant to multi-interfaces (or multi-address) and mobility.  I
>have read earlier versions of these drafts quite a while ago, IIRC, some
>parts of the flow filtering work has nothing to do with multiple
>addresses nor multiple interfaces.
>  
>
I dont' understand your comment here. These drafts propose a solution to 
move one flow from one interface (let say the previous interface) to 
another, without moving other flows using the previous interface. This 
has to deal with multiple interfaces.

Nicolas

>  
>
>>    - We should clearly list on the agenda that we will discuss about 
>>including NEMO multihoming work into Monami6.
>>    
>>
>
>Agree.  I mean, what Thierry says is right on target; clearly,
>multihoming issues that impacts both NEMO and MIPv6 is preferable to be
>handled in a potential WG like Monami6.  However, NEMO-Specific issues
>are more difficult to discuss while Monami6 is still a BoF.    
>
>I say let us put it this way, should Monami6 becomes a WG, and the NEMO
>WG are willing to transfer the multihoming work to Monami6, we would be
>glad to accept.
>
>  
>
>>Please express your opinions on these points.
>>
>>Nicolas
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Monami6 mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Monami6 mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6