Subject: [Mip6] FW: MIP6 agenda (Final)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:41:52 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patil Basavaraj 
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:38 PM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: MIP6 agenda 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> The current MIP6 WG agenda posted on the IETF web site says 
> the meeting is
> scheduled for Friday, Nov 11th. It should be Nov 12th.
> 
> Please post the following agenda (Final) for the MIP6 WG.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Basavaraj
> 
> ================================================================
> 
> 
> Mobility for IPv6 (mip6)
> 
> Time and Date of WG meeting at IETF61: Friday, Nov 12 from 9 - 1130 AM
> Duration: 2.5 hours
> 
> Agenda
> ======
> 
> 1. Agenda, Bluesheets, Note-takers and Jabber scribes	5 Mins
> 
> 2. WG status update		    Chairs		10 Mins
> 
> 3. MIP6 Operation with IKEv2 and the revised IPsec Arch.  20 Mins
>    I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-00.txt
>    Vijay Devarapalli
> 
> 4. a. Using IPsec to protect signaling between MN and CN   5 Mins
>       I-D: draft-dupont-mipv6-cn-ipsec-01.txt
>    b. Care-of address test procedure using a state cookie  5 Mins
>       I-D: Annex of draft-dupont-mipv6-cn-ipsec-01.txt
>    Francis Dupont
> 
> 5. AAA and Mobile IPv6				        
>   20 Mins
>    I-D: draft-giaretta-mip6-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt
>    I-D: draft-yegin-mip6-aaa-fwk-00.txt
>    Giaretta Gerardo/Alper Yegin
> 
> 6. MIPv6 Authorization and Configuration based on EAP    10 Mins
>    I-D: draft-giaretta-mip6-authorization-eap-02.txt
>    Giaretta Gerardo
>  
> 7. Application Master Session Key (AMSK) for Mobile IPv6   5 Mins
>    I-D: draft-giaretta-mip6-amsk-00.txt
>    Giaretta Gerardo
>  
> 8. Diameter Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping Application using PANA  15 Mins
>     I-D: draft-jee-mip6-bootstrap-pana-00.txt
>     I-D: draft-tschofenig-mip6-bootstrapping-pana-00.txt
>     Junghoon Jee, Hannes Tschofenig
>  
> 9. Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping Architecture Using DHCP	  15 Mins
>     I-D: draft-ohba-mip6-boot-arch-dhcp-00
>     Yoshihiro Ohba
> 
> 10. Bootstrap Control Function mechanism for Mobile IPv6 
> Bootstrap 10 Mins
>     I-D: draft-deng-mip6-bootstrap-bcf-00.txt
>     Hui Deng
> 
> 11. Precomputable Binding Management Key Kbm for Mobile IPv6 5 Mins
>     I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-precfgkbm-01.txt
>     Charles Perkins
> 
> 12. Improvement of Return Routability Protocol		
>    10 Mins
>     I-D: draft-qiu-mip6-rr-improvement-00.txt
>     Jianying ZHOU
> 
> 
> 13. Next steps			Chairs			
>    5 Mins
> 
> Time permitting, we will discuss these IDs and interest in this work:
> 
> a. Multihoming in MIP6
>    I-Ds: draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-02.txt
>          draft-ernst-generic-goals-and-benefits-00.txt
>    Nicolas Montavont
> 
> b. Load Balance for Distributed Home Agents in Mobile IPv6
>    I-D: draft-deng-mip6-ha-loadbalance-02.txt
>    Hui Deng
>    
> 

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:36:30 +0900

Dear Basavaraj,

> >          draft-ernst-generic-goals-and-benefits-00.txt

Well, I hope that you will make it permitted, because this is a rather
important issue on which we need feedback from the WG. We need some
standardized mechanisms to handle multiple interfaces on the MN. The
answer the MIP6 WG will give to this question will have an impact on how
we are going to handle it in the NEMO WG.

Note that I will make this presentation instead of Nicolas and that I do
not intend to present the drafts (I will assume people have read it). I
will rather have a couple of slides to motivate my question: can we
include multiple interfaces support in MIP6 as a WG item ?

If not, there are enough people willing to set up a BOF for discussing
it at next IETF, but I would rather make sure we check this with the
MIP6 WG first.

Thierry (with no NEMO chair hat on)

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:51:14 -0800

> we are going to handle it in the NEMO WG.

I'm concerned that the above draft just scratches the surface of the
problem. Being able to tell the HA that the MR/MN has multiple CoAs
doesn't provide a mechanism for them to determine which of the paths is
working, and an interoperable mechanism for this would be needed.

Furthermore, work on multihoming in the multi6 WG has wisely limited its
scope to finding one working path, and in the MIP/Nemo context there has
been discussion of QoS of the different paths being taken into account.
While I understand the issue of wireless L2s with different bandwidth,
that problem is present even without any mobility; it shows up with a 
laptop using WLAN and GPRS.

Thus embarking on QoS sensitive, mobility specific multihoming support 
is both too open ended (on the QoS side) and too constraining (by only 
looking at cases when MIP/Nemo is used).

So I think it would be useful for folks to try to think about and 
discuss the bigger picture.

    Erik

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:15:43 +0900

Thanks Erik for your mail. Some comments below.

> laptop using WLAN and GPRS.

Exactly, this is why we specified in
draft-ernst-generic-goals-and-benefits-00.txt that motivations and
benefits of multihoming apply to both fixed and mobile nodes and
networks.

At first, we wanted to look at the problem from a mobility perspective,
which interests us at the first place, before we noticed that the problem
scope is mostly the same as for fixed nodes. However, there is more
motivations to have such features available for mobile nodes as they use
wireless links (more proned to failures) and move (therefore attaching
to heterogenous networks). 

> discuss the bigger picture.

Agree. But then, where should this discussion take place ? MIP6 WG ?
NEMO WG ? IPv6 WG ? Somewhere else ? BOF needed ? 

This said, and given the fact the feature is more needed to mobile
nodes, it may appropriate to limit the problem to mobile nodes only, and
to address only a specified number of the issues, bringing limited, but
useful benefits, in the short term. One starting point could be to allow
multiple CoA registration in MIP6, which can be done in a very
reasonable time-frame (solutions already exist).

This is why I would vote to conduct the work in MIP6, but my intend is
also to open the debate and not let him vanish as in the past.

Thierry.

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:40:15 -0800

> NEMO WG ? IPv6 WG ? Somewhere else ? BOF needed ?

I would add to Erik's observation that we need to be able to assess a topic to
see
the maturity of the problem and the state of solutions, as well as what could
be standardized in IETF. The IETF should work on well-defined _and_
well-agreed problems for which protocol specification could be accomplished
in a timely manner. Topics where the problem needs to be crystalized, and
solution
space needs "thinking" require a forum for discussion. And, MobOpts could
be such a place.

We (mip*, MobOpts co-chairs) are in the process of working out a model to
facilitate closer co-operation between mip* groups and MobOpts. The outcome
should be focussed discussion on topics of mutual interest that lead to
documents
which can be a) taken up in mip* groups for standardization, b) MobOpts RG
RFCs. MobOpts would run milestones and try to produce documents within a
timeframe of interest to mip* groups.

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:55:03 +0900

Dear Rajeev,

Mobopts is a reseach group (IRTF), the problem that we want to solve is
much more clarified clarified than that, and solutions could be brought
in a timely manner if we restrict ourselves to part of the exisiting
problems and extensions to MIP6 and NEMO.

Of course, taking a look at the whole picture would require much more
consideration, and for the whole picture Mobopts could be the right
place. But, my intention, right now, is not to open the pendora box;
it's rather about bringing a solution to an immediate concern, in a
timely manner: how can I make use of my MIP6/NEMO function when I have
multiple interfaces on my MH/MR ? I can't do it right now, and not
because it's np complex, but because there is no agreed solution between
the parties involved.

Regarding what has been said at the MIP6 meeting, taking into account
the feedback from Erik, Thomas, and all the other, I would go for a BOF
at next IETF, but not with the objective to set up a new WG, but just a
one-time BOF to discuss the problem thoroughly.

But, prior to doing that, the other people involved with me on the
problem statement drafts, we should improve/clarify/extend our drafts.
The target would be end of this year; based on new drafts we would
consider setting up a BOF or not. (OK, guys, now we have pressure on our
shoulders ;-)

Thierry

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:40:15 -0800

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:33:24 -0800

Thierry,

Are there any vendors interested in implementing this solution and/or
network operators interested in deploying it (note: I'm not asking for
detailed product plans, just the kind of committment that was given in, say,
the chartering discussion of the Mobike WG several IETFs ago)? Or other
standardization bodies (such as our good friends at 3GPP2) who are
interested in incorporating it into their standards?

        jak

PS: BTW, if you haven't seen it, you should check out the literature on
Boeing's Connexion system. It uses BGP to manage routes to a mobile 802.11
network in an airplane on a transcontinental flight. Lufthasa has deployed
it on their new A333-600's.

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:57:33 -0800

Hi Thierry,

> problems and extensions to MIP6 and NEMO.

This seems to imply that Mobopts cannot produce documents in a timely
manner. If so, I would like to encourage you to think otherwise. We would
be enforcing milestones and deadlines, and produce documents which
the IETF working groups find useful. Sorry I left out NEMO in my
previous message.

> place. But, my intention, right now, is not to open the pendora box;

What is the pandora's box? I think understanding the host multi-homing
and mobility is an important area before we can standardize things.

-Rajeev

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:07:06 +0900

Hi James,

> interested in incorporating it into their standards?

Peole from various companies have told me so and I would rather let them
express their opinions directly to demonstrate their true interest. But
many of them may not be on the list.

Also, there are proprietary solutions and these manufacturers may not be
eager to standardize their solutions (unless some raise the topic at the
IETF, in which case they would have to). 

For instance, mobile phone company A may want terminals allowing their
users to switch between 3G/GPRS and 802.11. In their scenario, both
access networks would belong to the same operator, so a proprietary
solution is fine.

But from a user perspective, I and other people think standardization is
important, and there is an important need. 

There are for instance the car manufacturers or those making products
for them (unfortunately, they don't speak up at the IETF because it's
not in their culture) who need to manage multiple interfaces on their
MIP6/NEMO MN/MR. The ISO TC204 WG16 is one of those efforts where such
feature is needed (in their CALM architecture).

About implementation, there is an effort ongoing in a branch of the KAME
ipv6 stack (don't look for it on the KAME page, you won't find it now)
and people willing to do the same in USAGI. I don't want to speak up for
USAGI and KAME people, but as far as reference implementations are
concerned, we better implement standards rather than proprietary
solutions, I think you would agree on this.

Thierry.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:27:54 +0900

Dear Rajeev,

> and mobility is an important area before we can standardize things.

By pandora box, I mean opening the debate from scratch like shall we do
that kind of stuffs at the application, transport or ip layer ? As I
said, my indend is to do it for mobile nodes, so something combine to
MIP6 and NEMO would bring the necessary benefits in not so long. From
the various drafts submitted to the Mobile IP/MIP6 WG over the past
years, it's quite obvious that we understand the problem. But solutions
solve different part of the problem, so it is time to come up with a
single solutions responding to the problem that can be solved reasonably
easily with MIP and NEMO.

On the other hand, investigating all the story with no specific protocol
or layerin mind is something that is very much research and may lead to
conclusions such as separating locator from identifier, etc. This, of
course, should not be happening at the IETF as it would need some
understanding.

About Mobopts, it depends what we want to do (enhancements to MIP6/NEMO
specifically vs covering the entire topic).  Also, IRTF cannot
produce anything in the standard track.

Thierry

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:15:59 +0100

Hi Rajeev,

> and mobility is an important area before we can standardize things.

I just wanted to come up on this point. Our intend is not to provide any 
solution at that time. As you say, and we totally agree on this point, 
what is important now is to gather our experience and ideas on "host" 
multihoming and discuss this. If we are able to identify clear needs 
and/or problem statement, we should investigate the solution space.

 From our recent work on this topic, we believe that host multihoming 
should be considered at the IETF (in any Working Group), at least to 
provide a problem statement on which people can decide if this work is 
relevant or not. We just need a place to discuss this officially, not 
just 5 minutes at the end of a meeting or something like that.

Nicolas

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:32:33 -0800

Nicolas,

> and/or problem statement, we should investigate the solution space.

This convinces me even more that this work should be done in MobOpts, as Raj
has requested. IETF is not a good place to do work where there is not a
general agreement on the architecture and basic design. Collecting data and
achieving consensus on the basic design and architecture based on the data
are research tasks, even though it may not be the kind of research that
lands one a prized spot on next year's MobiCom agenda. Therefore, I think if
there is not a solution that is well understood at hand, Mobopts is the
perfect place to do the work. Rajeev and Bill are making a strong effort to
have Mobopts be a place to mature good ideas rather than a graveyard for bad
ideas as some have accused the IRTF of being; in fact, from our last meeting
in Washington, Rajeev and Bill are planning to approve a couple drafts as
Research Group drafts, for eventual movement into IETF.

> just 5 minutes at the end of a meeting or something like that.

What about v6ops?  Erik Nordmark gave a talk at the ipv6 WG meeting in
Washington that the design team came up with. I believe they have been
stovepiped for quite a while in order to be able to make progress, but the
time may have come for someone with Mobile IP expertiese to take a look at
their solution and see how mobility and Mobile IP fits in.

                     jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:42:49 -0800

Hi Thierry,

Please don't feel offended, but I tend to discount attestations from
researchers that there is product and deployment interest. For 4 years, we
had researchers saying that there was product and deployment interest in
Seamoby, yet prior to switching the drafts to experimental, we had not a
single vendor or operator willing to say that they were interested in
developing and deploying the protocols. That's why they were switched to
experimental. If there are not vendors and operators willing to come on the
list and participate in the process so their customers can enjoy the
benefits of interoperability, then I don't think this is an appropriate
topic for the mip6 WG, since mip6 isn't chartered to do experimental work.

Regarding ISO, if there's another standardization body that needs the work,
then a liason letter to the IETF via the IAB requesting an Internet standard
might be in order.

However, I believe a more productive track would be to take the work to
Mobopts as Raj and Rajeev have requested, possibly in conjunction with
examining the multihoming work that v6ops is doing for mobility
implications. Rajeev and Bill are working hard to make Mobopts a venue for
maturing good ideas, and I think that this work may now be showing results,
since we now have two drafts there that they are interested in making
research group drafts, for eventual re-introduction into IETF.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thierry Ernst" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Mip6] FW: MIP6 agenda (Final)

> > > > > > is both too open ended (on the QoS side) and too constraining
(by
> > only
> > > > I would add to Erik's observation that we need to be able to assess
a
> > topic to
> > > > see
> > > > the maturity of the problem and the state of solutions, as well as
what
> > could
> > > > in a timely manner. Topics where the problem needs to be
crystalized,
> > and
> > > > We (mip*, MobOpts co-chairs) are in the process of working out a
model
> > to
> > > > which can be a) taken up in mip* groups for standardization, b)
MobOpts
> > RG

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:35:07 -0800

> course, should not be happening at the IETF as it would need some

Well, MobOpts for sure is not going to be as open-ended as you
might be imagining above.

> produce anything in the standard track.

Right, IRTF does not produce PS documents. I am questioning the need for
PS documents in IETF groups. If the "market out there" is happy with existing
solutions, why are we trying to invent PS documents? Who needs them?
Are we making judgement calls for the market?

-Rajeev

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:22:06 +0100

Hi James and Rajeev,

>Research Group drafts, for eventual movement into IETF.
Ok as I understand, we will submit next versions of our drafts in Mobopts ?

>their solution and see how mobility and Mobile IP fits in.
Unfortunatly I was not at the last IETF, I'll have to check the log.
Was a desgin team already formed to investigate mobility feature in v6ops ?

Nicolas

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:46:06 +0100

>> progress, but the time may have come for someone with Mobile IP 
>> expertiese to take a look at their solution and see how mobility 
>> and Mobile IP fits in.
>> 

v6ops is somehow rechartering nowadays and somehow re-focusing, which
means somehow mobility is out-of-focus for them.

OTOH there is a new public mip6-mip4-v6-v4 (miptrans) mailing list.
That's not a DT.  I think that's not about multi-homing either, but
since it's new and inceptive I think you should check their drafts see
how multihoming may fit in.  My oppinion is it doesn't but check it out.
http://tinyurl.com/5j8w6

I think better go to multi6.

Alex

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:15:58 +0900

Hi

MIP6/NEMO protocol lacks capability to setup multiple paths to the
Internet(i.e. HA). The problem is that a mobile host can not be
configured as a multihomed node with the current spec.  This is the
basic issue of MIP6 that MIP6 WG should solve somehow immediately.

KDDI is working on the multiple CoAs registration. KAME implementation
also has the same feature with interoperability to KDDI. Some other
companies uses our KAME stack to test multihoming experimentation,
too.

regards,
ryuji

At Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:33:24 -0800,

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:38:04 +0900

Hello Alex

At Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:46:06 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> 
> [1  <multipart/signed (7bit)>]
> [1.1  <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]

I agree that some issues can be discussed at multi6. But there is MIP6
specific issue.  How can we discuss multihoming issues without
capability of being multihomed mobile node?  I think MIP6 WG should
discuss how to setup multihomed mobile node/router at least.

ryuji

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:56:31 +0100

Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
> I agree that some issues can be discussed at multi6. But there is 
> MIP6 specific issue.  How can we discuss multihoming issues without 
> capability of being multihomed mobile node?

Ryuji, do we know how a non-mobile but multihomed node works?

> I think MIP6 WG should discuss how to setup multihomed mobile 
> node/router at least.

Let's see...

Alex