Subject: [Mip6] IETF 58 Meeting minutes

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:06:36 -0800

Hello,

I am attaching the meeting min for MIP6 WG. Thanks to Eva Gustafsson and 
Alepsh Patel for taking the meeting notes.

Regards
Gopal

MIP6 WG
Monday November 10th, 2003
Chairs: Basavaraj Patil, Gopal Dommety
http://www.mindsrping.com/~bpatil/IETF58/MIP6

Agenda Bashing (Basavaraj Patil)
Document status (Basavaraj Patil)

MIPv6 docs to be moved to the MIP6 WG from the Mobile IP WG (which is closing)
IANA assignments for the base spec ongoing

MIPv6 remote interop testing (Samita Chakrabarti)

Connectathon 2004 was announced
mobileip-ipv6, mipv6-ha-ipsec, perhaps nemo basic support draft will be tested
Connectathon update - new co-ordinator (UNH - Hiroshi T)

Design team was formed to develop guidelines  for uniform remote testing 
over IPv6 Internet.
This effort is similar  to 6-bone testing. This effort does not replace 
regular MIPv6 interop events
First draft is an individual submission. Need to get WG consensus if this 
should be a WG doc, on the interest and the Informational nature of the draft.

The purpose of remote interop testing is for  some implementers to dedicate 
stable MIPv6 systems in the Internet, other implementers can check basic 
functionality.

Requirements to participate:
  all nodes must register through ETSI web page, dedicated HAs, MNs & CNs 
in the test network
Central registration at: list.etsi.org/plugtests-mip6.html

Comment from someone (could not catch the name) about helping out with 
reviewing the test plan.

Continuing... (TJ Kniveton)

Discussed issues of IPv6 address allocation, security association, virtual 
home link,
diagram of nodes, solicited more implementer's comments are welcome

Current thought is to support Security associations - three methods to auth 
MN: NONE, AH, ESP

Inter-home agents protocol (HAHA) (Ryuji Wakikawa)

Discussed the Problem statement:
  need for reliability,
  load balancing (HA can be serving large number of MNs,
  if MN not uses RO HA becomes bottleneck of communication;
  several HAs sharing the load for the same home network),
redundancy (with HAs on topologically different links), MN cannot
currently register its binding to multiple HAs simultaneously,
serviceability, HA switching.

Discussions on mailing list: applying existing protocols (VRRP/HSRP, BGP
model, CARP-like mechanisms)

Goals are redundancy, load sharing, flexible HA selection

James Kempf: Want to do ipsec between HAs? (Yes) If you use ICMP you
can't because the spec prevents you from doing it.

TJ Kniveton: MN can change to be registered with best HA, how do you
figure out which is best?

Ryuji: MN knows some of the HAs...

TJ Kniveton: Needs some more thinking... MN home address will be moved
to new HA. What if HA advertises address that is not topologically
correct...

Q: If you route packets back to primary HA, how do you then reduce load
on HA? This actually increases load on HA. Also, if two HA advertise the
same prefix MN will only choose one. How will second prefix enter
routing table? Discussion about this ending with "Don't think you get my 
question..."

Q: Big aggregated prefix will be split into several... to reduce load
you don't route traffic back...

Basavaraj Patil: Need to discuss what the problem is that the WG wants
to work on. Need problem statement & problem definition. Then decide
this is problem really relevant that we should work on. This is one
solution, there are probably more. We need to look at that.

Alpesh Patel: Routing with multiple anycast addresses popping up...? Any
analysis on this?

Ryuji: Will make problem statement & send to the list.

MIPv6 advanced socket API extensions (Samita Chakrabarti)

API is useful for debugging, tracing, policy applications etc.
This is a combined effort of IPv6 & MIP6 WG

Updates & resolved issues, suggested changes.

Next steps : Basavaraj Patil: Discussions with IPv6 WG, happy to let work 
be done
here, in conjunction with IPv6 WG, ok to make this a WG document if
there is WG consensus.

Problem statement for multi-homed mobile nodes (Nicolas Montavont)

List of current work on multi-homing
What's missing: terminology, motivation, accurate & common goal
Some issues are related to Mobile IP while some are not

A MN is multi-homed when it has several addresses to choose between
Benefits of multi-homing: redundancy, ubiquitous computing, load
balancing, preference settings
Why MIPv6?
Open issues
Which WG to take this to?

James Kempf: This is what I want to talk about at bar BoF tonight. Have
invited people from transport area to come.

Q: Some issues related to MIPv6, some not, those related to MIPv6 are
obviously for this WG.

Basavaraj Patil: Aspects for MIPv6 are interesting. Making bigger
changes to current MIPv6. How important is it to get this done right
now? Need to also look at if problem can be solved in different way.
Suggestion to look at problem statement & scenarios.

Thierry Ernst: Good to investigate problem statement, but where do we do
it? This WG? Nemo WG? How to coordinate activities between WGs.

Q: Node with multiple interfaces... that's the problem.

Raj: ADs have any comments?

Thomas Narten: No clear answer. Clarify problem statement, and ask
question about which WG for each specific problem. Maybe there is no WG,
maybe we need BoF.

Basavaraj Patil: This is problem also seen in nemo. Don't start new WG
and work on generic solution. Have to consider fact that MIPv6-specific
issues belong in this WG.

Q: Some issues are very specific; which interface node picks is totally
internal to node. How multiple pieces are put together? Applicable to
MIPv6: you cannot have MN with multiple addresses work with MIPv6 today.

Basavaraj Patil: Let's continue discussion, look at scenarios, see what
comes out of bar BoF.

MIPv6 MIB (Glen)

Purpose: monitoring operations of mip6 entities (MN, HA, CN);
operational statistics, errors, events
Configuring/controling mip6 entities

MIB design

Greg Daley: Don't have to bind same home address to same c/o address in
all cases... CN1 & CN2, you want to communicate with them on two
different paths, you want to have entry in table... multiple c/o address
to one home address, BU list tells you who you are communicating with;
you have no information about that in this table

Samita Chakrabarti: What are address types

Glen: Here type is address type

Greg Daley: Does registered also mean re-registered?

Glen: No

Q: When you come back home you can de-register. This does not expire.
Want to make that distinction?

Updated I-D, MIB issues: MIB review guidelines, RFC issues: security
considerations
Related issues, to be done, implementation

Route optimization hint option (Keiichi Shima)

Problem statement: MIP6 defines route optimization mechanism, there are no 
guidelines when
to start route optimization
Things to be discussed & defined: condition on when to use RO, methods
to inform MN about condition.

Example of configuration: fire-walled network

Q: why not just configure firewall to let packets through? Firewall
never blocks response to request. Mobility header. Don't understand what
problem you are trying to solve here.

Basavaraj Patil: Yes, this is firewall problem. Let's take this
off-line.

Jari Arkko: Would be better to update firewall. Also, wouldn't it be
better to let message get dropped and inform MN there is no RO (if
firewall blocks). That's the way the specification currently works.

Greg Daley: Other issues than firewall cases? What about latency between
MN & CN? You reduce signaling each time you move if you don't have to do
RO.

Basavaraj Patil: This draft only looks at one instance where RO should
be used or not. There are lot more cases, and therefore lot more work
that needs to be done on this.

Q: Valid problem, but depends whether organization/corporation wants to
go to standardization or just reconfigure / solve internally.

Roadmap for MIP6 (Gopal Dommety)

Home agent reliability
Alternate RO schemes
MIP for MIP6
Bootstrap for SA between MN & HA
Document issues
Separate specs for issues such as....

Charlie Perkins: Combine the charter of this WG with mipshop?

Gopal Dommety: Out of scope of the roadmap discussion.

Q: What are we planning to do with bootstrap? Where is mechanism coming
for bootstrap.

Basavaraj Patil: We had lengthy discussion in Vienna.

Jari Arkko: One thing missing is if you add new home address, setting up
policy entrance is not possible.

Discussion items (Gopal Dommety)

Identity for authentication (NAI)
Multi-homing discussion
Deployment issues discussion
Vendor-specific extensions
Authentication of MN to HA without ipsec

Looking for people interested in working on bootstrap mechanisms.

Acknowledgements:

Thanks to Eva   Gustafsson and Alpesh Patel for taking excellent meeting 
notes.

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Patrick Rene Guillemin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:12:41 +0100

Dear Gopal,

Erratum

*Please Read*
Requirements to participate:
  all nodes must register through ETSI web page, dedicated HAs, MNs &
CNs 
in the test network
Central registration at: mip6.plugtests.org

*and not*
Requirements to participate:
  all nodes must register through ETSI web page, dedicated HAs, MNs &
CNs 
in the test network
Central registration at: list.etsi.org/plugtests-mip6.html

*My comments on this mistake:*
Confusion was made between the core designer mailing list archives 
list.etsi.org/plugtests-mip6.html

and the mip6 remote plugtests coordination web site ;-)
mip6.plugtests.org

Use only mip6.plugtests.org and register your HAs, Mns and CNs !
Thank you

Thanks to Maeva Petitjean for the development effort !
BR
Patrick GUILLEMIN
ETSI - Plugtests Technical Coordinator

-----Original Message-----
From: Gopal Dommety [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 08 December 2003 19:07
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Mip6] IETF 58 Meeting minutes

Hello,

Regards
Gopal

MIP6 WG

MIPv6 docs to be moved to the MIP6 WG from the Mobile IP WG (which is
closing)
IANA assignments for the base spec ongoing

Connectathon 2004 was announced
mobileip-ipv6, mipv6-ha-ipsec, perhaps nemo basic support draft will be
tested
Connectathon update - new co-ordinator (UNH - Hiroshi T)

over IPv6 Internet.
This effort is similar  to 6-bone testing. This effort does not replace 
regular MIPv6 interop events
First draft is an individual submission. Need to get WG consensus if
this 
should be a WG doc, on the interest and the Informational nature of the
draft.

The purpose of remote interop testing is for  some implementers to
dedicate 
stable MIPv6 systems in the Internet, other implementers can check basic

functionality.

Requirements to participate:
  all nodes must register through ETSI web page, dedicated HAs, MNs &
CNs 
in the test network
Central registration at: list.etsi.org/plugtests-mip6.html

Discussed issues of IPv6 address allocation, security association,
virtual 
home link,
diagram of nodes, solicited more implementer's comments are welcome

Current thought is to support Security associations - three methods to
auth 
MN: NONE, AH, ESP

question..."

Next steps : Basavaraj Patil: Discussions with IPv6 WG, happy to let
work 
be done
here, in conjunction with IPv6 WG, ok to make this a WG document if
there is WG consensus.

MIPv6 MIB (Glen)

MIB design

Glen: No

Problem statement: MIP6 defines route optimization mechanism, there are
no 
guidelines when
to start route optimization
Things to be discussed & defined: condition on when to use RO, methods
to inform MN about condition.

Home agent reliability
Alternate RO schemes
MIP for MIP6

Acknowledgements:

notes.

---

From: "Maeva Petitjean" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:56:36 +0100

Dear Gopal,

Erratum

*Please Read*
 http://www.mindspring.com/~bpatil/IETF58/MIP6

*and not*
> http://www.mindsrping.com/~bpatil/IETF58/MIP6

Thank you
Regards,

Maeva PETITJEAN
ETSI Plugtests