[Netext] Draft revision of the NETEXT charter

[w52006 at huawei.com (Yungui Wang)]

Hello Jari

Yeah, of course you are right that 'MIF does not rely on Mobile IPv6 
or Proxy version thereof'. 
I just want to view it from side of PMIP domain. Such as, there is
a valid requirement/scenario that a certain multiple interface
capable node, which maybe can't enable traffic flow handover 
between interfaces but needed, is located in the PMIP domain. 
Next step will be how to do in PMIP domain. Thus, I'd like to 
propose its working item into Netext charter, not to MIF charter. 
>From requirement/scenario to working item, in my understanding, 
that's a general process in IETF.

Also I have seen that debate at before. The opposed voices 
are similarly solution-based, e.g. existing MIP multihoming 
works, unmodified-host, etc. I won't join in. 
However, could you tell me how to deal with above 
requirement/scenario?

Thanks.
Yungui


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko at piuha.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:57 PM
> To: w52006 at huawei.com
> Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp
> Subject: Re: [Netext] Draft revision of the NETEXT charter
> 
> Yungui,
> 
> > I am concerning of how MIF capable node works in PMIP domain.
> > In the charter of MIF, there is a paragraph described as below:
> > "...The group shall not assume any
> > software beyond basic IP protocol support on its peers or in network
> > nodes. No work will be done to enable traffic flows to move from one
> > interface to another. The group recognizes existing work on 
> mechanisms
> > that require peer or network support for moving traffic 
> flows such as
> > RFC 5206, RFC 4980 and the use of multiple care-of 
> addresses in Mobile
> > IPv6. This group does not work on or impact such mechanisms.  ..."
> >
> > That's, MIF capable node is dependent on network to provide 
> traffic flows 
> > moving among interfaces.
> 
> No, maybe this is a misunderstanding. MIF is really not assuming 
> anything like that happening. The charter text simply notes that such 
> work exists and that its not MIF WG's place to develop those further.
> 
> >  However, how to do traffic flows handover 
> > between interfaces in PMIP domain is not described. If MIF 
> capable node
> > is located in PMIP domain, then this feature will be disable. 
> > I am wondering if/when these works will be done in Netext(PMIP).
> > Some PS and I-D had stated these issues as below.
> > 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-devarapalli-netext-multi-inte
> rface-support-
> > 00
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeyatharan-netext-multihoming-ps-01
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xia-netext-flow-binding-00
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-koodli-flow-handover-00
> > Thus, personally propose this working item is included in 
> the charter 
> > and making things progress. Thanks.
> >   
> 
> The MIF charter did not mention PMIP specifically, but the 
> list was not 
> intended to be complete. Multiple care-of address work in 
> Mobile IPv6 is 
> already being standardized, and PMIP multihoming is under 
> consideration 
> (currently heavily debated).
> 
> In any case, MIF does not rely on Mobile IPv6 or Proxy 
> version thereof. 
> Those efforts are proceeding independently.
> 
> Jari
>