Subject: RE: [MEXT] new charter version

From: "DENG, HUI -HCHBJ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:48:24 +0800

May I  conform one thing here: (please allow me cc ifare)
IFARE will consider different IP address for GW, is this correct?
if this is true , it may not sync with virtual switchmode.
 
-Hui

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: 2007-7-23 (星期一) 6:57 
	To: Jean-Michel Combes 
	Cc: [email-masked] 
	Subject: Re: [MEXT] new charter version

	Hi Jean-Michel
	
	On 2007/07/02, at 21:46, Jean-Michel Combes wrote:
	
	> Hi Behcet,
	>
	> 2007/6/30, Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>:
	>>
	>> Hi Jari,
	>>   In fact HA reliability work is almost over. I think the current 
	>> draft is
	>> expected to go for WGLC soon and the subteam is almost closed. I 
	>> don't think
	>> it would take Aug 08 to complete this work. HA reliability could be
	>> completely removed from this charter.
	>
	> IMHO, I am not so sure. That depends whether you want, concerning the
	> IPsec failover, a MIP6 WG based solution or a general one (i.e. IFare
	> work) included the draft.
	
	IPsec failover is assumed only for the HA virtual switch case.
	There is no mechanism available so far in IETF.
	And we don't think the MIP6 WG is the right place to specify the 
	ipsec failover.
	We already had consensus on this point in MIP6 WG.
	As soon as solution(IFARE?) are available, we can update the HA 
	reliability to support that.
	
	regards,
	ryuji

	>>
	>> Kind regards,
	>>
	>> Behcet
	>>
	>
	> [snip]
	>
	> Best regards.
	>
	> JMC.
	>
	> _______________________________________________
	> MEXT mailing list
	> [email-masked]
	> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

	_______________________________________________
	MEXT mailing list
	[email-masked]
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:08:59 -0500

Hui,
> IFARE will consider different IP address for GW, is this correct?
I think that was the goal of IFARE. Then again, we don't
have an IFARE WG at the moment, so we are speculating.

Jari

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:51:03 +0200

Hi Jari and all,

I am sorry I should have commented the charter earlier, but here are 
some thoughts. We will take some time at the monami6 meeting on 
Wednesday to discuss those.

    - I was wondering how multiple HA addresses is linked to multiple 
home addresses allocated to mobile hosts. When talking about multiple 
interfaces (item A.3), the charter mainly talks about multiple CoAs and 
multiple HA addresses. However, in the current documents that we have in 
the Monami6 WG, we focus more on multiple CoAs and multiple HoAs. For 
example, the current working group document 
draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-03.txt proposes a mechanism to bind 
multiple CoAs to a single HoA, not a single HA address as written in the 
MEXT charter ("A protocol extension to support the registration of 
multiple Care-of Addresses at a given Home Agent address [Standard Track].")

However, I think that multiple HA addresses do not imply that the node 
will have multiple HoAs, and vice versa (multiple HoAs do not imply that 
we have multiple HA addresses) (please correct me if I am wrong). I 
think that to fully consider the problem of multihomed MN in MobileIPv6 
/ NEMO, we should consider multiple CoAs, multiple HoAs, and multiple HA 
addresses. So I propose the following changes to the charter:

* 2nd paragraph in (A.3) Use of multiple interfaces.
from
When a mobile host/router uses multiple network interfaces 
simultaneously, or when multiple prefixes are available on a single 
network interface, the mobile host/router would end up with multiple 
Care-of Addresses (CoAs). In addition, the Home Agent might be attached 
to multiple network interfaces, or to a single network interface with 
multiple prefixes, hence resulting in the option to use multiple IP 
addresses for the Home Agent. This could result in the possibility of 
using a multitude
of bi-directional tunnels between pairs of {Home Agent address, CoA} and 
a number of associated issues: establishment, selection and modification 
of multiple simultaneous tunnels.

to

When a mobile host/router uses multiple network interfaces 
simultaneously, or when multiple prefixes are available on a single 
network interface, the mobile host/router would end up with multiple 
Care-of Addresses (CoAs) or multiple home addresses.
In addition, the Home Agent might be attached to multiple networks 
through multiple interfaces, or receive multiple IPv6 prefixes on a 
single network interface, hence resulting in the option to use multiple 
IP addresses for the Home Agent. This could result in the possibility of 
using a multitude of bi-directional tunnels between pairs of {Home Agent 
address, CoA} and a number of associated issues: establishment, 
selection and modification of multiple simultaneous tunnels.

* deliverable 2:
from
- An analysis document explaining what are the limitations for
mobile hosts using multiple simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home
Agent addresses using Mobile IPv6, whether issues are specific to
Mobile IPv6 or not [Informational].

To
An analysis document explaining what are the limitations for mobile 
hosts using multiple simultaneous Care-of Addresses, Home Agent 
addresses and Home addresses using Mobile IPv6, whether issues are 
specific to Mobile IPv6 or not [Informational].

* Deliverable 3:
from
A protocol extension to support the registration of multiple Care-of 
Addresses at a given Home Agent address [Standard Track].
TO
A protocol extension to support the registration of multiple Care-of 
Addresses to a single home address [Standard Track].

    - I have another issue with the fourth deliverable of this section 
A3. The current charter says in A3:

A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of
policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the
Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the
Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution involves two
specifications, one for the policy format and another for its
transport [both Standard Track].

I think this goal is not very clear and would need to be clarified. I 
can read here three different goals, which are:
    (1) Exchange policies to influence the choice of the CoA
    (2) Exchange policies to influence the choice of the HA address
    (3) Specify a generic format to describe the policies

I think that (1) should be re-written to "Policies enforcement from the 
mobile host/routerto the HA to influence the choice of the CoA." I 
suggest that because the mobile host/router is the only one to know the 
addresses that are mapped to its interfaces. What we need, is a protocol 
to indicate to the HA which CoA to use at the HA for a specific flow. 
The policies set up (e.g., I want VoIP over your Wifi interface) was 
always out of scope of the work in monami6.

(2) isn't it HA switching work?

(3) Can't we add an additional item to make clear that we will have 2 
documents?

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:31:46 -0500

Nicolas,

I have not sent this forward yet, so there is time to make
edits.

However, as I recall the Monami6 chartering process, the
decision to not focus on multiple home addresses was done
deliberately. That is, the use of multiple home addresses
is very close to the generic multihoming problem and it
seemed inappropriate to try to address that in a mobility
working group.

So, while I agree that the current text is not the best
possible one, I'm not sure the new text is right either...

Jari

> interfaces (item A.3), the charter mainly talks about multiple CoAs
> and multiple HA addresses. However, in the current documents that we
> have in the Monami6 WG, we focus more on multiple CoAs and multiple
> HoAs. For example, the current working group document
> multiple CoAs to a single HoA, not a single HA address as written in
> the MEXT charter ("A protocol extension to support the registration of
> will have multiple HoAs, and vice versa (multiple HoAs do not imply
> that we have multiple HA addresses) (please correct me if I am wrong).
> I think that to fully consider the problem of multihomed MN in
> MobileIPv6 / NEMO, we should consider multiple CoAs, multiple HoAs,
> and multiple HA addresses. So I propose the following changes to the
> charter:
>
> Care-of Addresses (CoAs). In addition, the Home Agent might be
> attached to multiple network interfaces, or to a single network
> interface with multiple prefixes, hence resulting in the option to use
> multiple IP addresses for the Home Agent. This could result in the
> possibility of using a multitude
> of bi-directional tunnels between pairs of {Home Agent address, CoA}
> and a number of associated issues: establishment, selection and
> modification of multiple simultaneous tunnels.
>
> to
>
> single network interface, hence resulting in the option to use
> multiple IP addresses for the Home Agent. This could result in the
> possibility of using a multitude of bi-directional tunnels between
> pairs of {Home Agent address, CoA} and a number of associated issues:
> establishment, selection and modification of multiple simultaneous
> tunnels.
>
> * deliverable 2:
> from
> I think that (1) should be re-written to "Policies enforcement from
> the mobile host/routerto the HA to influence the choice of the CoA." I
> suggest that because the mobile host/router is the only one to know
> the addresses that are mapped to its interfaces. What we need, is a
> protocol to indicate to the HA which CoA to use at the HA for a
> specific flow. The policies set up (e.g., I want VoIP over your Wifi
> interface) was always out of scope of the work in monami6.
>

---

From: "Taewan You" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:30:36 +0900

Dear Jari,

I fully agree with Nicolas opinion about the multiple HoAs.

We will assume a general situation in where a mobile node with three
heterogeneous interfaces such as 802.11, CDMA, and 802.16e. In this
situation, we will also assume that each technology is provided in different
service provider. Then each interface has own home address for supporting
connectivity to own subscribers.

Therefore, there are so several issues to clarify in this situation as like
according to the draft of "mip6 analysis" such as registration to given home
agent, synchronizations between multiple home agents, and so on. 

Regarding a position of Administrators for each different L2 technologies,
the issues of multiple home agents and addresses should be handled. And I
think that the issues are belonging to mobility extension work.

Regarding
Taewan.

> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:32 AM
> To: Nicolas Montavont
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:45:23 +0200

>possible one, I'm not sure the new text is right either...

You are right, this is resulting from the MonAmi6 chartering process. 

The problem is that a CoA is bound to a particular HoA, not the HA
address, so we cannot skip dealing with the HoA. 

Not dealing with all of the cases bring inconsistancy between the
charter and the documents. I'm in favor of clarity in the charter and
the problem statements. Regarding the solutions, I think everyone will
understand that the group is not going to work on issues dealt with
Shim6 or other groups.

Thierry

-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD 
INRIA Rocquencourt France Project-Team IMARA / JRU LARA
http://www.lara.prd.fr +33 1 39 63 59 30 (office)
-- 
The coming end of the IPv4 world: http://penrose.uk6x.com

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:07:26 -0500

There is no question that the issues exist. The argument
was that this is not the right place to deal with them.

Jari

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:00:33 +0200

Hi Jari,

> seemed inappropriate to try to address that in a mobility
I remember and still agree. I think that it is not the job of monami6 
(and MEXT) to propose solutions for multiple HoA management.
> possible one, I'm not sure the new text is right either...
However I think that we can (and should) enhance the text, without 
proposing more work that we are actually doing in Monami6 (and follow in 
MEXT). For example, the item 3 (registration of multiple CoA) is 
definitely the registration of multiple CoA to a single home address, 
and not for a single HA address as we have now in the charter.

The other changes I proposed (on the multiple HoAs issue) mainly 
concerns the problem statement document and does not suggest to deal 
with the problem in this working group. Indeed, in the problem statement 
document we suggest either to use other multihoming protocol (such as 
shim6), or to be able to register a HoA as a CoA in specific configuration.

Regards,
Nicolas