[Netext] next steps for netext

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 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Esta parte del mensaje est? firmada	digitalmente
URL: <http://www.mobileip.jp/pipermail/netext/attachments/20090416/e7f8bde6/attachment.bin>