[Netext] next steps for netext

Hi John,

El vie, 17-04-2009 a las 01:13 +0800, john.zhao escribi?:
> Hi Carlos
> 
> 2009/4/17 Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano <cjbc at it.uc3m.es>:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > El vie, 17-04-2009 a las 00:25 +0800, john.zhao escribi?:
> >> Hi Carlos,
> >>
> >> 2009/4/16 Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano <cjbc at it.uc3m.es>:
> >> > Hi Ryuji,
> >> >        Sorry for the delayed reply. Comments below.
> >> >
> >> > El mi?, 08-04-2009 a las 18:04 -0400, Ryuji Wakikawa escribi?:
> >> >> Hello Carlos,
> >> >>
> >> >> On 2009/04/07, at 12:51, Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hi Behcet,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know what is fixed and mobile points of attachment. You can
> >> >> clarify these.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I've sent another e-mail regarding this (hope there is more clear).
> >> > Summarising, what I call a fixed point of attachment is a MAG as it is
> >> > defined in RFC5213 that does not move. I call a mobile point of
> >> > attachment a MAG that would also be able to move (like an MR) within the
> >> > PMIPv6 domain.
> >> [John.zhao]So,would you like extend the MAG capability to a moving
> >> router,right? If thus, where is the LMA for this MAG?
> >
> > Well, it can be seen the other way around, to extend the MAG capability
> > to be mobile...
> >
> [John.zhao]So,is it a method for moving router or MAG? And what is the
> difference to the mobile Router to connect to the fixed or mobile
> attachment point as you mentioned?

I see it as a method for a MAG that is able to move. The key point -- as
I see it -- is to enable network-based localised mobility domains also
to moving platforms. By doing that, a legacy MN would be able to roam
within a domain that compasses not only MAGs that do not change their
point of attachment, but also MAGs that are also able to move.

Thanks,

Carlos

> 
> John.zhao
> 
> > Carlos
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>         Best Rgds,
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> John.zhao
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Carlos
> >> >
> >> >> ryuji
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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
> >> >>
> >> > --
> >> >   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
> >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > NetExt mailing list
> >> > NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> >> > http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >> >
> >> >
> > --
> >   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
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
-- 
   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/20090420/8975316e/attachment-0001.bin>