[Netext] next steps for netext

> Regarding multiple interface support and inter-access handovers: the
> primary issue is the ability to use the same address across
> interfaces.

I'll differentiate the two cases that the above statement covers, to
make sure both dont get the same tag.

- Inter-interface handoff of support, leveraging what is
   supported in 5213. Where the mobile node has the ability
   to move prefixes between interfaces, for address and
   session continuity. This is currently supported.

- The ability for the mobile node to attach to two networks,
   configure the same prefix and address on two interfaces
   simultaneously. In affect, the interfaces operating in
   bridged mode and a virtual interface managing the ND aspects.
   This is beyond 5213, and is in scope for the proposed
   multihoming work.

Solution may be very well use a virtual interface for solving both.
May be this can be two different work items, or one.

Sri

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Rajeev Koodli wrote:

> Hi Jari,
>
> thanks for the start on the charter.
>
> Regarding multiple interface support and inter-access handovers: the
> primary issue is the ability to use the same address across
> interfaces. This can be considered a functionality that needs to be
> turned on, e.g., through the use of virtual interfaces. This is not a
> "host change" per se, at least we can be clear about it in the
> charter. As Ryuji pointed out, IPv6 is (still?) disabled by default on
> Windows OS. Does enabling it constitute a "host change"?
>
> I think we need to consider problems which need to be solved (in
> addition to the good debate which may sometime turn here and there :-)
> ).
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rajeev
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:
>> In the meeting we ended up having a big argument about the multihoming and
>> handover parts. I don't know what to do about that yet, but I would still
>> like to suggest that the other parts should move forward. I edited the
>> charter from the web site. Comments appreciated:
>>
>> -------
>>
>> Network-Based Mobility Extensions (NETEXT)
>>
>> Last Modified: 2009-04-03
>>
>> Chair(s):
>> TBD
>>
>> Internet Area Director(s):
>> Ralph Droms <rdroms at cisco.com>
>> Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
>>
>> Internet Area Advisor:
>> TBD
>>
>> Mailing Lists:
>> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>
>> Description of Working Group:
>>
>> Proxy Mobile IPv6, specified in RFC 5213, is a network-based mobility
>> protocol. It uses a Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) and a Local Mobility Anchor
>> (LMA) to allow hosts to move around within a domain while keeping their
>> address or address prefix stable. Proxy Mobile IPv6 has been incorporated
>> into a number of products and deployments are starting. Certain deployment
>> considerations, including localized routing and bulk refresh of lifetime are
>> already emerging.
>>
>> The working group will focus on the following topics relevant for
>> network-based mobility:
>>
>> Localized Routing: a specification for routing traffic between the MAG(s)
>> without involving the LMA. That is, allow the MAGs to route traffic between
>> hosts from one MAG to another, without being tunneled all the way to the
>> LMA. This reduces latency and backhaul load. Applications such as voice can
>> benefit from the reduced latency. Hosts are not affected, as they still send
>> and receive their packets via the MAG.
>>
>> Bulk Refresh: a specification of improving the signaling load for binding
>> lifetime refresh. The current specifications call for the handling of each
>> mobility session independent of each other. When a large number of hosts are
>> served by a single MAG, a periodic refresh of the binding lifetimes can lead
>> to a signaling storm. The purpose of the Bulk Refresh feature is to
>> construct a protocol feature that allows such refreshes to occur on a
>> per-MAG basis.
>>
>> LMA Redirection: a specification for allowing an LMA to redirect a MAG to
>> another LMA. This is primarily needed as a way to perform load balancing,
>> and is complementary to the initial LMA discovery work in the NETLMM WG.
>>
>> The proposed activity will be complementary to the existing IETF Working
>> Groups, notably the NETLMM and MEXT WGs. ?The NETEXT working group will also
>> act as the primary forum where new extensions on top of the Proxy Mobile
>> IPv6 protocol can be developed. The addition of such new extensions to the
>> working group involves addition of the extension to this charter through the
>> normal rechartering process.
>>
>> Milestones
>>
>> May 2009 ? ? ? ? ? ? WG chartered
>> July 2009 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Initial WG draft on Bulk Refresh
>> September 2009 ?Initial WG draft on LMA Redirection
>> November 2009 ? Initial WG draft on Route Optimization
>> December 2009 ? Submit Bulk Refresh to IESG for publication as a Proposed
>> Standard RFC
>> January 2009 ? ? ? Submit LMA Redirection to IESG for publication as a
>> Proposed Standard RFC
>> April 2010 ? ? ? ? ? ?Submit Route Optimization to IESG for publication as a
>> Proposed Standard RFC
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetExt mailing list
> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
>