[Netext] Draft revision of the NETEXT charter

I'd like to propose the following new version of the charter to resolve 
issues related to (1) host interaction wrt this charter and (2) LMA 
redirection.

The rationale for (1) is that there seems to be universal agreement that 
the current work items do not affect hosts in any way. I wanted to find 
a compromise where the charter declares the principles under which it 
operates but does not prejudice the outcome of the discussions regarding 
the extensions. I think it would be unfair to hold the current harmless 
extensions up just because we have not agreed upon some other extensions 
or what rules such extensions must not or may break. I realize that this 
compromise may leave some people wish a stronger statement in the 
current. And some other people wishing that the charter did not have 
those words. However, I hope that it is a reasonable compromise that 
allows us to find rough consensus and move ahead.

The rationale for (2) is that after checking with some of the people 
involved in the discussion, including LMA redirection in the charter 
seems to be acceptable, if its scope and relation to other solutions is 
a bit clearer in the charter and the eventual specification has an 
applicability statement that does not sell the specification as the 
solution for all situations.

Jari

Network-Based Mobility Extensions (netext)
-------------------------------------------------------------

Last Modified: 2009-04-20

Current Status: Proposed Working Group

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.

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. This functionality is complementary to implementation 
techniques that allow distributed MAG implementations to move tasks 
around without a visible impact at the protocol level, and the the 
initial LMA discovery work in the NETLMM WG. An applicability statement 
describing the situations where the new functionality is or is not 
applicable has to be included in the specification.

The work in this charter is entirely internal to the network and does 
not affect hosts in any way (except perhaps through impacting packet 
forwarding capacity visible to the hosts).

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.

This initial charter excludes a number of possible work items that have 
been discussed in the BOF and on the list. The working group should 
continue the discussion about possible update of its charter and 
principles under which the new work items must operate under. The 
completion of the work items in the initial charter is not a requirement 
for the rechartering to become possible. It is expected that a decision 
about the additional extensions is made in a timely manner.

Milestones

May 2009 WG chartered
July 2009 Initial WG draft on Bulk Refresh
July 2009 Charter revision approved for possible new work items
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