[netext] IETF85: Netext WG meeting minutes
Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> Wed, 05 December 2012 20:38 UTC
Return-Path: <bpatil1@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD8921F8C5C for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:38:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tNKoAH+EGjg4 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ia0-f180.google.com (mail-ia0-f180.google.com [209.85.210.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F103121F8C51 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:38:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ia0-f180.google.com with SMTP id t4so4026327iag.25 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:38:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eM+saNq4CTKFfT2hcsKznaSMbFG3suIRYNguQWnKKGo=; b=q8vY0Tv+lgmH0iXI49+ppq2+eCocAS1ll/eXOHmSHVZQQBWkssn2f+PZkAwO/Ka2Uy jW1WcHhfiQkJQvs4A0Zr/2bB/iwF0sPVQ/Qosj9B5tESs1E8P+KRPpC9ggvjk26yPP8D hRj+QnkbYIbh5kLGvPsjT1HU9Fk7aZ/7QNPH2a6AMcfbOaoyEPZVi35LVSEJ8XYiEU8Q di8N0r9teiufRqQQroUUmbMuqbl7qivmLNXmoOVXjct4P4uiKcErmiqeslkHxfgpezXF i1qPJ9e22agn+YzVxbxfRtqMKZVxQzzIo5u3XKQc4+r0M4cczOyF51FUBTmxqjpLBdPw PtdA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.213.73 with SMTP id nq9mr3530898igc.27.1354739909415; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:38:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.104.136 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:38:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CAA5F1T24Ev587j+PtgAbWRuqiOFLNsoRxWDio2XKMFrfn-HCQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>
To: netext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae93405f310522604d020f7d0"
Subject: [netext] IETF85: Netext WG meeting minutes
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:38:31 -0000
Network-Based Mobility Extensions WG meeting at IETF85 (Atlanta, USA) Monday, November 5th, 2012 1520-1720 Afternoon Session II Chairs: Basavaraj Patil (basavaraj.patil@nokia.com) Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli@cisco.com) These meeting minutes are courtesy of: 1. Byju Pularikkal (byjupg at cisco.com) 2. Carl Williams (carlw at mcsr-labs.org) ------------------------------------------------------------- The meeting was chaired by Basavaraj Patil. Rajeev Koodli was unable to attend because of a travel conflict. 1. WG Status update - Two documents published as RFC 6705 & 6757 - SIPTO option-7: AD review - RFC5149 bis LC completed ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Logical Interface Support for multi-mode IP Hosts I-D: draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-06 Sri Gundavelli Update by Sri on Logical interface support: Key issues covered: What is logical interface (Sri explained). To support many Hand off scenaios we specify 5213. When hand off happens we need to make sure that host does not se any change as far as IP stack is concerned, We do not want application to detect any connectivity lost. Julien: Comment from: Why do u need link identifier on the original interface? When you have a loop back interface and assign the IP to it then it should essentially provide . Virtual interface identifier may not be required when loop back interface is in use. Sri: From network signaling we always identify the interface using some interface identifier. Julien: How is this going to work for IPv4 where there is no link layer identifier. Sri: How does the network identify the attachment point with out virtual t link layer identifier Sri: You are looking at more as a interconnect between physical interface and routing. In some access systems we can say that virtual interface identifier can just map to the physical map. Conclusion: Virtual interface does not need LLID, physical interface may or may not have. Kent: What is the rationale behind LLID, it is not just for pure forwarding The intention to have a single LLID across several interfaces is it feasible or not? But also PMIP needs a LLID at least for WiFi and WiMAX interfaces Julien: If you have different LLIDs on physical interfaces and some does not you can always build a system which will work. I don't see the requirement for virtual LLID Pete McCann's comment regarding multiple provisioning domains. How does logical interface deal with it. Sri's explanation, It will essentially be a single provisioning domain. Logical interface will only be applicable to single provisioning domain. Chairs comment, text too implementation specific: Sri commented this issue will be addressed. Juan: It is time to move this document along. got quite a good amount of feedback. Raj: <Chairs comment> Fail to understand what is it trying to accomplish. Sri: A working system has been shown matches what ever proposed. 6> Clarity of the draft Kostas: Why don't we do a quick editorial round on the document? Why don't we move the implementation specific aspects into an Appendix? Brian: One of the things that people push back is, what u describe is mandatory for interop with another device then completely required to put in the text; If not, put in appendix. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob CJ Bernardos - Detailed reviews received from Marcos and Juan - Draft is ready for WGLC (1) Comments: Section 3.2.1 has nothing normative. Why do u have that section. How does prefix delegation affect flow mobility? May be move that section to appendix or completely remove RFC 5648 & RFC 6089 comments. Multiple Proxy CoA registration, taking it to extremes on this. How are we going to use 5648 and 6089 in PMIP? Raj: Significant progress has been made on this document but just needs some couple of more reviews. Kent has agreed to review . Only concern with the draft is linking with the logical interface. Sri: Are we replicating all the FMI options? Not really replacing PBU-PBA concept. Depends up on the scenario, one one case PBU/PBA is used in other SMI/SMA. Raj also recommended that a issue tracker be setup for this I-D to close open issues and progress the draft to WG last call. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip Carl Williams - Authors addressed all the issues. Document is ready for IESG revew: Alex: Read the updated draft. Some more modification discussions going on and will raise them on the list. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 I-D:draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos Marco Liebsch Progress: - Initial draft presented at IETF 82 - Version 1 addresses comments about interpretation of QoS policies. Kent: Are u speccing non-3GPP access networks as well? Looks like taking a specific reference for a generic model. So far it is covered. Sri: Application function can notify LMA about a new flow and then can signal QoS. MAg after detecting a new flow can do a PBU/PBA and can get the QoS signaling info. There is another way of loading QoS on MAG. S-9 with non-3GPP access. What is the relationship between that Qos and one in the draft? Inband signaling such as described here may be an easy way to implement QoS There are some updated RFCs is with guidelines about semantics on the DSCP values Raj: Really need some reviews and feedback on this document ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Update Notifications for Proxy Mobile IPv6 I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-update-notifications-01 Suresh Krishnan Taken care of all the open comments officially requesting the chair to adopt. Six or seven people in the room have read the draft. Kent: Does it allow LMA to send some generic signaling or even some specific signaling messages? This is pretty much a notification with reason code and mobility options. This is more of a framework and we can add semantics later - LMA to MAG messaging we need some kind of standardization Kent: Make sure: Don't duplicate what ever is out there - 11 people in favor of adopting the document… - Draft is pretty simple. Accept the review from x number of people and then move this forward ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Network Mobility Support using Mobile MAG in PMIP6 domain I-D: draft-sijeon-netext-mmag-pmip-00.txt Seil Jeon Ahmad:: Is that mMAG just a mobile node? And what is the security requirement to send the binding update to LMA? - mMAG is registered with the LMA. mMAG is not seen as mobile node. MAG is attached to a fixed MAG. - mMAG can be considered as a dual entry, Mobile node from fixed MAG perspective, and MAG for the mobile nodes connected to mMAG - What is the difference between this and the mobile node acting as a router Raj: tends to disagree with the concept of mMAG Raj: Have a discussion on this document in the working group mailing list ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8. MN Status Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 I-D: draft-tu-netext-mn-status-option-02 Yangwei Tu Raj: There are questions about the problem statement itself. We should discuss whether it is a solution for a problem worth solving Sri: There is work related to Opcon and othe notifying the radio congestion to the LMA. MAG is typically not on the access point. Definitely there is merit in notifying it but don't know how MAG will know those characteristics Carlos: LMA can benefit from having additional info from the MAG. Not only about radio conditions, it is just one of the capabilities. This is an important issue to address Raj: Idea is to convey more decisions to LMA , not talking about flow mobility. Some concerns, who knows about the status of the mobile node, idle or active etc ---------------------------------------------- 9. Mapping PMIP Quality of Service in WiFi Network I-D: draft-kaippallimalil-netext-pmip-qos-wifi-01 J. Kaipallimalli - Based up on the comments on version 00 some updates have been made to 01. Kent: Traffic filters based on IP layer.At AP layer it will be mac based, how do u address overlapping IP address support? Raj: Will request additional reviews of the I-D and encourage more discussion on the list. ---------------------------------------------- 10. Seamless Handover for Multiple-Access Mobile Node in PMIPv6 I-D: draft-cui-netext-pmipv6-shpmipv6 Y. Chen Time ran out and hence this I-D was not discussed at the meeting. ---------------------------------------------- Summary and Next steps: - Three documents will go to LC before the next IETF meeting. 1. pd-pmip 2. logical-interface - to be decided whether ready for last call 3. flow-mobility Strong consensus to adapt Suresh's draft. Will follow up on the mailing list. -- Basavaraj Patil
- [netext] IETF85: Netext WG meeting minutes Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [netext] IETF85: Netext WG meeting minutes Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [netext] IETF85: Netext WG meeting minutes Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)