[Netext] Draft revision of the NETEXT charter

jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Wed, 22 April 2009 15:57 UTC

From: "jari.arkko at piuha.net"
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:57:25 +0200
Subject: [Netext] Draft revision of the NETEXT charter
In-Reply-To: <00a501c9c2eb$9ba27c30$150ca40a@china.huawei.com>
References: <00a501c9c2eb$9ba27c30$150ca40a@china.huawei.com>
Message-ID: <49EF3E65.30103@piuha.net>

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-interface-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