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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 06:43:06 +0200

Alex,

> > 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?

Lots of discussion about this in Multi6.  Multi6 is working on site
multihoming, but there has been a lot of discussion of host multihoming
there as well.  

John
 
> > I think MIP6 WG should discuss how to setup multihomed mobile 
> > node/router at least.
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> Alex
> 

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

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 07:30:35 +0100

Hi all,

I do agree that many working group talk about host multihoming (at least 
in personal drafts).
What we have to decide now, is in which charter this feature should be 
included.

As Ryuji pointed out, there are MIP6 specific issues. But at the first 
step, I believe that we should describe a problem statement, independant 
from any protocol.
Once we have clearly identified what we want to solve, we can propose 
specific solutions.

Here is a proposed list of working group candidates:
    - Mobopts
    - Multi6
    - Ipv6ops
    - Miptran
    - MIP6
    - Other ?

Nicolas

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:26:10 +0900

Hi

> Here is a proposed list of working group candidates:

May be a special purpose BOF to discuss the topic at length (without
interfering with topics of other WGs and ending up rushing up in 5
minutes at end of slot), or a new WG, with a charter limited to only
produce a problem statement ? 

BTW, Thomas Narten pointed out the need for listing the problems
specific to MIP6, if I didn't mixed what he said on the mic.

Thierry

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:14:49 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

> produce a problem statement ?

I agree, though I'd say there should be no need to spin up a WG just 
to provide a problem statement, a couple of good individuals and a BoF 
would probably be OK. :)

And unless there are enough interested participants, a WG isn't going 
to help..

> specific to MIP6, if I didn't mixed what he said on the mic.

His point was to:
  1) identify the generic issues (not MIPv6 specific)
     * and maybe work on these somewhere else
  2) identify the MIPv6 specific issues
     * and possibly work on these in MIP6 WG

To get there, I might suggest that someone consider creating a 'host 
mobility & multihoming in ipv6' (hmm6?) mailing list, and try to 
discuss and work on the above two problems there.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:35:24 +0900

Dear Pekka,

>      * and possibly work on these in MIP6 WG

Thanks for being more precise than myself. 

So, we already have 2 drafts, but they both need to be enhanced (our
intention is to issue new documents before the end of the year - let's
say by January 3rd since nobody in some parts in the world would read
over the holidays)

> discuss and work on the above two problems there.

That's my intention too. I can do this. I wait over the week-end to see
reactions of other people, and they we can create it. 

I was thinking about other names, though: multiface (MULTIple
interFACEs) or MM6 (hmm6 sounds better than MM6) ;-)

Thierry.

---

From: Nobuo Ogashiwa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:32:07 +0900

Dear Thierry,

> interFACEs) or MM6 (hmm6 sounds better than MM6) ;-)

The name "multiface" reminds me the ML is just for multiple interface 
cases.
I think that a discussion of multihoming should include the case of
a single interface, multiple upstream routers.

Regards,
Nobuo Ogashiwa

> Thierry.
---
Intec NetCore, Inc.
1-3-3, Shinsuna, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 136-0075 Japan
TEL +81-(0)3-5665-5069 FAX +81-(0)3-5665-5094
Nobuo Ogashiwa <[email-masked]>