[Netext] next steps for netext
jonghyouk at gmail.com (Jong-Hyouk Lee) Wed, 08 April 2009 15:54 UTC
From: "jonghyouk at gmail.com"
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:54:20 +0900
Subject: [Netext] next steps for netext
In-Reply-To: <a752cd420904070951k68c8dcf9pe7ba7172a223efbe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49D5BB60.4090407@piuha.net> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0904030724180.13726@irp-view13.cisco.com> <49DA441D.2020501@piuha.net> <a752cd420904070415s2756c132q5c282802f3d86c6f@mail.gmail.com> <787855.23911.qm@web111414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <a752cd420904070951k68c8dcf9pe7ba7172a223efbe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f54070070904080854l501eb9e0x18ccd9c0f21f2c66@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, Carlos. Good to see your posts in this mailing. Anyway, the following document has been expired would provide some scenarios for NEMO within PMIPv6 networks. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-netlmm-nemo-scenarios-01 Have a good day! 2009/4/8 Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano <cjbc at it.uc3m.es> > Hi Behcet, > > I've quickly checked the document. I think it does address the same > problem I was referring to. This draft addresses the problem of > delegating a prefix to a router that attaches to a PMIPv6 domain, so > it can provide connectivity to nodes attached to it. I think this was > already discussed in a past meeting (a draft with the problem > statement) and I mentioned that IMHO this can basically be achieved by > just using plain NEMO support on the router. The only difference in > this draft is that it doesn't impose the router to be a NEMO RFC3963 > MR, although still it needs to do some additional things that a normal > router (not mobile) doesn't. Anyway, I'm not against this type of > support if there are scenarios in which it's useful. > > 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? > > 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 > -- Internet Management Technology Lab, Sungkyunkwan University. Jong-Hyouk Lee. #email: jonghyouk (at) gmail (dot) com #webpage: http://hurryon.googlepages.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.mobileip.jp/pipermail/netext/attachments/20090409/5e6e82ee/attachment-0001.html>
- [Netext] next steps for netext Yungui Wang
- [Netext] next steps for netext Xiangsong Cui
- [Netext] next steps for netext Mohana Jeyatharan
- [Netext] next steps for netext Koodli, Rajeev
- Re: [Netext] next steps for netext netext-bounces
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext teemu.savolainen at nokia.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext john.zhao
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext Behcet Sarikaya
- [Netext] next steps for netext john.zhao
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext john.zhao
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext Behcet Sarikaya
- [Netext] next steps for netext Jong-Hyouk Lee
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext teemu.savolainen at nokia.com
- [Netext] charter in public review Jari Arkko
- [Netext] next steps for netext Qin Wu
- [Netext] next steps for netext Ryuji Wakikawa
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Julien Laganier
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Domagoj Premec
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Ryuji Wakikawa
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work George Tsirtsis
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext Marco Liebsch
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Giaretta, Gerardo
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Domagoj Premec
- [Netext] next steps for netext Giaretta, Gerardo
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Ryuji Wakikawa
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Vijay Devarapalli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Vijay Devarapalli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Ryuji Wakikawa
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext Ryuji Wakikawa
- [Netext] next steps for netext Giaretta, Gerardo
- [Netext] next steps for netext Domagoj Premec
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Ryuji Wakikawa
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Domagoj Premec
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Koodli, Rajeev
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Ahmad Muhanna
- [Netext] Scope of proposed work Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Frank Xia
- [Netext] next steps for netext Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Vijay Devarapalli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Jong-Hyouk Lee
- [Netext] next steps for netext Jari Arkko
- [Netext] next steps for netext Domagoj Premec
- [Netext] next steps for netext George Tsirtsis
- [Netext] next steps for netext Vijay Devarapalli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Giaretta, Gerardo
- [Netext] next steps for netext Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext Xiangsong Cui
- [Netext] next steps for netext Giaretta, Gerardo
- [Netext] next steps for netext Vijay Devarapalli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext Giaretta, Gerardo
- [Netext] next steps for netext Behcet Sarikaya
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- [Netext] next steps for netext Domagoj Premec
- [Netext] next steps for netext pierrick.seite at orange-ftgroup.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Marco Liebsch
- [Netext] next steps for netext Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext pierrick.seite at orange-ftgroup.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext pierrick.seite at orange-ftgroup.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext Vijay Devarapalli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Giaretta, Gerardo
- [Netext] next steps for netext Koodli, Rajeev
- [Netext] next steps for netext Giaretta, Gerardo
- [Netext] next steps for netext teemu.savolainen at nokia.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Ryuji Wakikawa
- [Netext] next steps for netext Jari Arkko
- [Netext] next steps for netext Jari Arkko
- [Netext] next steps for netext Jari Arkko
- [Netext] next steps for netext MELIA TELEMACO
- [Netext] next steps for netext Jari Arkko
- [Netext] next steps for netext Koodli, Rajeev
- Re: [Netext] next steps for netext netext-bounces
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Jari Arkko
- [Netext] next steps for netext Vijay Devarapalli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Vijay Devarapalli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Frank Xia
- [Netext] next steps for netext Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext George Tsirtsis
- [Netext] next steps for netext teemu.savolainen at nokia.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Giaretta, Gerardo
- [Netext] next steps for netext Frank Xia
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Hesham Soliman
- [Netext] next steps for netext Ahmad Muhanna
- [Netext] next steps for netext Mohana Jeyatharan
- [Netext] next steps for netext Mohana Jeyatharan
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] [netlmm] FW: next steps for netext Behcet Sarikaya
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Sri Gundavelli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Rajeev Koodli
- [Netext] next steps for netext Xiangsong Cui
- [Netext] next steps for netext Jari Arkko
- [Netext] next steps for netext pierrick.seite at orange-ftgroup.com
- [Netext] next steps for netext Jari Arkko