[Netext] next steps for netext

Hi. Carlos.

In the I-D, four types of scenarios are presented. All of them mainly
focuses on the MR involving nodes hands off between MAGs or LMAs
(intra-domain handoff and inter-domain handoff). The scenarios for the
case you mentioned would be covered in the next version of the I-D (I hope).

Do you have any issues in mind for the case?

Cheers.

2009/4/16 Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano <cjbc at it.uc3m.es>

> Hi Jong-Hyouk,
>
>        Sorry for the delayed reply. I'll take a look at that draft and
> provide
> comments. Please, let me ask a short question (before I've read the
> draft): does the I-D look at any scenario involving an MN that changes
> its point of attachment between an MR (attached to a PMIPv6 domain) and
> a MAG?
>
>        Thanks,
>
>        Carlos
>
> El jue, 09-04-2009 a las 00:54 +0900, Jong-Hyouk Lee escribi?:
> > Hi, Carlos.
> >
> > Good to see your posts in this mailing. Anyway, the following document
> > has been expired would provide some scenarios for NEMO within PMIPv6
> > networks.
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-netlmm-nemo-scenarios-01
> >
> > Have a good day!
> >
> >
> > 2009/4/8 Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano <cjbc at it.uc3m.es>
> >         Hi Behcet,
> >
> >         I've quickly checked the document. I think it does address the
> >         same
> >         problem I was referring to. This draft addresses the problem
> >         of
> >         delegating a prefix to a router that attaches to a PMIPv6
> >         domain, so
> >         it can provide connectivity to nodes attached to it. I think
> >         this was
> >         already discussed in a past meeting (a draft with the problem
> >         statement) and I mentioned that IMHO this can basically be
> >         achieved by
> >         just using plain NEMO support on the router. The only
> >         difference in
> >         this draft is that it doesn't impose the router to be a NEMO
> >         RFC3963
> >         MR, although still it needs to do some additional things that
> >         a normal
> >         router (not mobile) doesn't. Anyway, I'm not against this type
> >         of
> >         support if there are scenarios in which it's useful.
> >
> >         However, the kind of NEMO+PMIPv6 support I'm considering goes
> >         a little
> >         bit beyond that, since what I want to enable is node to be
> >         able to
> >         benefit from network based localised mobility support not only
> >         when
> >         roaming between fixed points of attachment (this is what
> >         RFC5213 does
> >         today) but also when roaming between fixed and mobile points
> >         of
> >         attachment. What people do think about this scenario?
> >
> >         Thanks,
> >
> >         Carlos
> >
> >         2009/4/7 Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya at yahoo.com>:
> >
> >         > Hi Carlos,
> >         >   Check this out:
> >         >
> >
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wakikawa-netext-pmip6-nemo-support-00
> >         >
> >         > Regards,
> >         >
> >         > Behcet
> >         >
> >         > ________________________________
> >         > From: Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano <cjbc at it.uc3m.es>
> >         > To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
> >         > Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp
> >         > Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 6:15:42 AM
> >         > Subject: Re: [Netext] next steps for netext
> >         >
> >         > Hi Jari, all,
> >         >
> >         > Regarding the NEMO topic, I don't know what Sri has in mind,
> >         but my
> >         > personal view on that is that it'd be nice to extend PMIPv6
> >         to support
> >         > mobile networks. What I mean here is that it'd be nice to
> >         enable MAGs
> >         > to also move (like MRs, but without even supporting
> >         RFC3963), so an MR
> >         > would be able to move between fixed and mobile MAGs without
> >         changing
> >         > its IP address (same support RFC5213 gives now). There are
> >         some
> >         > interesting scenarios that could benefit from this.
> >         >
> >         > What do others think? It is interesting to work on this?
> >         >
> >         > Thanks,
> >         >
> >         > Carlos
> >         >
> >         > 2009/4/6 Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>:
> >         >> Sri,
> >         >>
> >         >> Thanks for your input. Inline:
> >         >>
> >         >>> I've a concern with the planned charter. The list is too
> >         random and
> >         >>> cherry picked and I dont believe proper input from all the
> >         folks went
> >         >>> into
> >         >>> this. There are many other items that are required for a
> >         reasonable
> >         >>> deployment of Proxy Mobile IPv6. Many items were proposed
> >         over the last 2
> >         >>> years, some of them that were left out in the base spec,
> >         some that we
> >         >>> realized as gaps when compared to other SDO protocols and
> >         some as
> >         >>> optimizations that we realized while implementing PMIP6,
> >         these items
> >         >>> should be in the initial scope.
> >         >>>
> >         >>> I understand the charter needs to be limited in scope, but
> >         just 3 or 4
> >         >>> random items, I'm not sure if this helps in short term
> >         PMIP6
> >         >>> requirements.
> >         >>> I've no issue with the currently listed items, but there
> >         are other items
> >         >>> that should get equal or higher priority.
> >         >>
> >         >> I have no problem with adding more. Even the charter says
> >         new things can
> >         >> be
> >         >> added.
> >         >>
> >         >> However, from a process perspective what I did was to take
> >         the proposal on
> >         >> the table, i.e., the full BOF scope and see what parts of
> >         that we already
> >         >> have an agreement on. I didn't include other things that
> >         were not
> >         >> discussed
> >         >> in the BOF. Maybe that would have been useful, but they
> >         were not on the
> >         >> table.
> >         >>
> >         >> We could add more items now, if there's general agreement
> >         that those
> >         >> things
> >         >> are useful. However, I do not want to declare an open
> >         season on doing
> >         >> everything. We pick a reasonable subset of all proposed
> >         work, based on
> >         >> priorities, community agreement that they are the right
> >         things to do,
> >         >> management reasons to ensure that we are not doing too
> >         much, etc.
> >         >>
> >         >>> For example, item #6, is absolutely required, from the
> >         perspective of
> >         >>> having a complete specification of 5213. There we allowed
> >         a mobile node
> >         >>> to
> >         >>> perform handoff betweek two interfaces. We defined all the
> >         hooks on the
> >         >>> network side, but we did not provide how a terminal vendor
> >         can support
> >         >>> that. A simple informational draft on how some one move
> >         prefixes between
> >         >>> interfaces will greatly help. Some guidance on how to
> >         create a virtual
> >         >>> interface and also some related notes for each platform
> >         (Linux, BSD,
> >         >>> Android ..etc). This should not fall in the controversial
> >         discussion
> >         >>> scope
> >         >>> of same address on two interfaces etc, thats a different
> >         problem, or
> >         >>> about
> >         >>> the issue of enhancing mobile node's capabilities. This is
> >         just
> >         >>> informational work, required to leverage what 5213 already
> >         supports.
> >         >>
> >         >> I suspect this is about the scoping of the handoff work.
> >         Lets try to
> >         >> figure
> >         >> out what makes sense (I personally believe the above item
> >         makes sense, for
> >         >> instance) and what doesn't.
> >         >>
> >         >> The fact that these parts were not in the charter was not a
> >         declaration
> >         >> that
> >         >> we're dismissing them. Its just that we didn't finish the
> >         discussion, but
> >         >> I
> >         >> still wanted to let the other things move forward.
> >         >>
> >         >>> Item #2, is required. The multimob BOF raised some issues,
> >         we need to
> >         >>> show how multicast services can be enabled in PMIP
> >         network. May be this
> >         >>> wont require extensions, a simple draft covering those
> >         aspects will help.
> >         >>
> >         >> As you may recall, in the Multimob BOF we did not have an
> >         agreement on
> >         >> what
> >         >> exactly is needed, if anything. My own conclusion is that
> >         we probably need
> >         >> at least an informational document that explains how to use
> >         RFC 5213 for
> >         >> multicast. I think we discussed the possibility of doing
> >         this as some kind
> >         >> of AD sponsored document or in one of the relevant WGs, as
> >         a joint work
> >         >> between PMIP and multicast experts.
> >         >>
> >         >> I'm on the fence about adding this work to the charter
> >         right now, mainly
> >         >> because the BOF back then was very inconclusive. I'd be
> >         happier if I saw
> >         >> an
> >         >> actual well written draft from say you and some of the
> >         multicast experts.
> >         >> There's no problem moving good documents forward, even if
> >         they are not in
> >         >> the charter of some WG. Then again, I wouldn't necessarily
> >         mind a
> >         >> maintenance like item for this in one of the WG charters
> >         either.
> >         >>
> >         >>> I think, the charter should be bit more relaxed and more
> >         extensive. As I
> >         >>> see it, atleast the folks are interested in doing the
> >         work. We should add
> >         >>> atleast 4 or 5 more items to this list.
> >         >>
> >         >> Generally speaking IETF WG charters give specific work
> >         items that the WG
> >         >> should work on. I had hoped that the charter text:
> >         >>
> >         >> "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."
> >         >>
> >         >> gives an indication that we intend to do more! I am also
> >         personally very
> >         >> happy to add more items to the group's charter. All in all,
> >         I do know that
> >         >> the current charter is a bit on the thin side -- mostly
> >         because the
> >         >> multihoming/interaccess issue is under discussion.
> >         >>
> >         >> There's also the question of general maintenance items.
> >         Some IETF WGs have
> >         >> a
> >         >> general work item to fix problems and issue updates to
> >         existing
> >         >> specifications. I think we need to do that for Proxy Mobile
> >         IPv6 as well.
> >         >> But we have not decided whether that item should go to
> >         NETLMM or NETEXT WG
> >         >> yet. Please rest assured that the work will be possible
> >         regardless of
> >         >> this.
> >         >>
> >         >>> 1. Dynamic LMA Assignment
> >         >>>
> >         >>> In blade architecture systems or in a load balancer
> >         configuration, the
> >         >>> PDNGW
> >         >>> should have the ability to dynamically assign a LMA on the
> >         fly, along the
> >         >>> lines of Mobile IPv4 Dynamic Home Agent Address Assignment
> >         support
> >         >>> [RFC-4433].
> >         >>> Currently, GTP provides such semantics and this is a
> >         important
> >         >>> requirement
> >         >>> for deployment. Here the goal is to
> >         >>>
> >         >>> a.) Expose a single IP address to the SGW
> >         >>> b.) The exposed IP address should not be in path once the
> >         assignment is
> >         >>> done.
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>> [LMA1]---
> >         >>> | |
> >         >>> [LMA2]--[LMA]==========[MAG]
> >         >>> | |
> >         >>> [LMA3]---
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>> Along the lines of:
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-korhonen-netext-redirect-01
> >         >>
> >         >> This is in the proposed NETEXT charter already.
> >         >>
> >         >>> 2. Multicast Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6
> >         >>>
> >         >>> We need an informational specification on how multicast
> >         support can be
> >         >>> enabled in Proxy Mobile IPv6 environment. Behcet has done
> >         extensive
> >         >>> analysis
> >         >>> on
> >         >>> this. This is required and critical for enabling any
> >         multicast services.
> >         >>> However,
> >         >>> Behcet may disagree with the scope of the work.
> >         >>
> >         >> See above.
> >         >>
> >         >>> 3. Bulk Registration Support
> >         >>>
> >         >>> This is a simple extension which helps in signaling
> >         optimization, along
> >         >>> the
> >         >>> lines of:
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-premec-netlmm-bulk-re-registration-02
> >         >>
> >         >> This is in the charter as well.
> >         >>
> >         >>> 4. Partial Failover Support
> >         >>>
> >         >>> We need a mechanism to notify the peer on revoke a partial
> >         set of
> >         >>> bindings.
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-koodli-netlmm-path-and-session-management-00
> .
> >         >>> txt
> >         >>
> >         >> Hmm. Ok. This needs more discussion.
> >         >>
> >         >>> 5. Group Identifier Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6
> >         >>>
> >         >>> This provides a simple and a generic semantic for
> >         assigning a group
> >         >>> identifier
> >         >>> to a mobile node's binding. GTP has very similar
> >         semantics, Connexion Set
> >         >>> Id.
> >         >>> Both #3 and #4 can leverage this. Additionally, in load
> >         balancer systems
> >         >>> where
> >         >>> the load balancer is in path for all signaling messages,
> >         it can use this
> >         >>> as
> >         >>> a
> >         >>> tag for redirecting the message.
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gundavelli-netext-mn-groupid-option-00
> >         >>
> >         >> Since the bulk registration work is in the charter, can't
> >         you do the
> >         >> sensible design (whatever it is) under that? There is no
> >         requirement that
> >         >> one charter item equals one document.
> >         >>
> >         >>> 6. Virtual-Interface Support on IP host for supporting
> >         Inter-tech
> >         >>> handoffs:
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>> RFC-5213 supports handoff between two interfaces. The
> >         ability to move
> >         >>> prefixes between interfaces. In other words address
> >         continuity is assured
> >         >>> with any IPv6 host on the planet and with absolutely no
> >         changes. This
> >         >>> meets
> >         >>> even Dave's comment, that "no changes to any IETF RFC's.".
> >         Now, what is
> >         >>> not assured is the aspect of session continuity. Which
> >         requires a virtual
> >         >>> interface implementation on the host, by binding the
> >         address/prefix to a
> >         >>> virtual interface and by not exposing the physical
> >         interface or by hiding
> >         >>> the handoff events from the layer-3 stack.
> >         >>>
> >         >>> In essence, we need an informational specification which
> >         provides some
> >         >>> general guidance to how to leverage the feature support
> >         provided in
> >         >>> RFC-5213,
> >         >>> along the lines of:
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yokota-netlmm-pmipv6-mn-itho-support-00
> >         >>
> >         >> This is part of the discussion that we need to finish. But
> >         I plan to let
> >         >> the
> >         >> rest of the stuff move forward even before we have done
> >         that.
> >         >>
> >         >>
> >         >>> 7. Route Optimization for Proxy Mobile IPv6
> >         >>>
> >         >>> There were atleast 4 drafts in this area on Route
> >         Optimization. Marco
> >         >>> Liebsch
> >         >>> analyzed this exensively:
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-ro-ps-00
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-koodli-netext-local-forwarding-00
> .
> >         >>> txt
> >         >>
> >         >> This is in the charter.
> >         >>
> >         >>> 8. Prefix Management in Proxy Mobile IPv6 support
> >         >>>
> >         >>> Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows the assignment of multiple home
> >         network prefixes
> >         >>> to a given mobile node's interface. It might be useful to
> >         specify how the
> >         >>> LMA manages this aspects. It can potentially use DHCP PD,
> >         Local Pools or
> >         >>> AAA to manage this aspect. Behcet has one draft on this.
> >         >>
> >         >> I'm not personally sold on this particular work. But again,
> >         this could be
> >         >> something to consider.
> >         >>
> >         >>> 9. Partial Handoff Support
> >         >>>
> >         >>> We are missing some semantics in 5213 for moving a subset
> >         of the prefixes
> >         >>> between interfaces as part of the inter-tech handoff. This
> >         is about
> >         >>> defining
> >         >>> a new handoff value. This allows partial flow management,
> >         but moving the
> >         >>> flows associated to a prefix, as a whole group.
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeyatharan-netext-pmip-partial-handoff-00
> >         >>
> >         >> A part of the topic we still need to discuss...
> >         >>
> >         >>> 10. CMIPv4/PMIP Interworking
> >         >>>
> >         >>> This is probably required to specify how an IPv4-only can
> >         move between
> >         >>> CMIP and PMIP environments.
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >         >>>
> >
> http://sunsite.mff.cuni.cz/MIRRORS/ftp.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-
> >         >>> meghana-netlmm-pmipv6-mipv4-00.txt
> >         >>
> >         >> Client MIPv6 and Proxy MIPv6 interoperability is already in
> >         the NETLMM
> >         >> charter, but this work is presumably about interaction with
> >         MIPv4. Might
> >         >> be
> >         >> useful work, I wouldn't mind if this was done in NETEXT at
> >         some point. Is
> >         >> this crucial to be in the first revision of the WG's
> >         charter?
> >         >>
> >         >>> 11. NEMO/Prefix delegation to Mobile Node in Proxy Mobile
> >         IPv6
> >         >>
> >         >> Can you expand on this?
> >         >>
> >         >> Jari
> >         >>
> >         >> _______________________________________________
> >         >> NetExt mailing list
> >         >> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> >         >> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >         >>
> >         > _______________________________________________
> >         > NetExt mailing list
> >         > NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> >         > http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >         >
> >         >
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         NetExt mailing list
> >         NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> >         http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University.
> > Jong-Hyouk Lee.
> >
> > #email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
> > #webpage: http://hurryon.googlepages.com/
> --
>   Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
>   GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>                IEEE Network Special Issue on
>        Advances in Vehicular Communications Networks
>  http://www.comsoc.org/livepubs/ni/info/cfp/cfpnetwork0110.htm
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>

-- 
Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University.
Jong-Hyouk Lee.

#email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com
#webpage: http://hurryon.googlepages.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mobileip.jp/pipermail/netext/attachments/20090416/097efffb/attachment-0001.html>