[Netext] next steps for netext

Hi Jari,

I think the discussion (or argument as you put it) at the BoF was useful. It
highlighted the fact that there is a good amount of misunderstanding on what
can be done w.r.t multihoming or inter-technology handovers.
There are some aspects of multihoming that can be clearly separated, i.e the
flow mobility vs the ability of having a host attached via multiple
interfaces to the same LMA or dynamically establishing additional moobility
sessions. We could narrow down aspects of multihoming which could fit into
the scope of the charter.
There has been some discussion (online and offline) about the
inter-technology handovers. The intent of the work item within Netext is to
clarify host behavior to support such handovers.
There is obviously quite a strong view of making host changes to support any
of the features (multihoming or intertechnology handovers). I believe that
there will be a class of hosts which will have the capability to support
multihoming and support inter-technology handovers. As long as we do not
break the PMIP6 RFC (5213), I think it makes sense to specify these
features. For unmodiified hosts, we can agree that they will not be able to
perform inter-tech handovers or be support any of the multihoming scenarios.
But to categorically avoid specifying these features within Netext (or IETF)
will only result in non-standard implementations.

The proposed charter below is a start. But I do believe that we need to
include the multihoming and inter-tech handover features as well with the
caveat that they should not break backwards compatibility with RFC5213 and
are applicable only for hosts which "MAY" have certain implementations that
are viewed by some as being modified IP hosts. FWIW we did say that Netext
does not mandate "no changes to the host" but will make all efforts to limit
them and try to find solutions that are network centric.

-Raj

On 4/3/09 2:31 AM, "ext 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
> 