Subject: [Mip6] WG Review: Recharter of Mobility for IPv6 (mip6)

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:50:01 -0400

A modified charter has been submitted for the Mobility for IPv6 (mip6)
working group in the Internet Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made 
any determination as yet.  The modified charter is provided below for 
informational purposes only.  Please send your comments to the IESG 
mailing list ([email-masked]) by September 26th.

+++

Mobility for IPv6 (mip6)
==========================

Current Status: Active Working Group

Chair(s):
Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Director(s):
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip6/index.html

Description of Working Group:

Mobile IPv6 (MIP6) specifies routing support which permits an IPv6
host to continue using its home address as it moves around the
Internet, enabling continuity of sessions. Mobile IPv6 supports
transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of active
transport level sessions. The base specifications for Mobile IPv6
consist of:

o RFC 3775
o RFC 3776

The primary goal of the MIP6 working group will be to enhance base
IPv6 mobility by continuing work on developments that are required for
wide-scale deployments. Additionally the working group will ensure
that any issues identified by implementation and interoperability
experience are addressed, and that the base specifications are
maintained. The group will also produce informational documentation,
such as design rationale documents or description of specific issues
within the protocol.

Deployment considerations call for work to reduce per-mobile node
configuration and enrollment effort, solutions to enable dual-stack
operation, mechanisms to support high-availabity home agents, and ways
to employ Mobile IPv6 in the presence of firewalls.

Work items related to base specification maintenance include:

- Create and maintain an issue list that is generated on the basis of
implementation and interoperability experience. Address specific
issues with specific updates or revisions of the base
specification. This work relates only to corrections and
clarifications. The working group shall not revisit design
decisions or change the protocol.

- Update RFC 3776 to specify the usage of IKEv2 for the establishment
of the IPsec SA between the MN and HA. This work also provides a
way for a mobile node to change its home address or employ multiple
home addresses as needed.

- Update the IANA considerations of RFC 3775 to allow extensions for
experimental purposes as well passing of optional vendor-specific
information.

Work items related to large scale deployment include:

- Bootstrapping Mobile IPv6: A bootstrapping mechanism is intended to
be used when the device is turned on the very first time and
activates Mobile IPv6, or periodically such as when powering
on. The WG should investigate and define the scope before solving
the problem.

Work on the problem statement and the solutions needed for various
deployment scenarios. Work with other WGs such as DHC for defining
the options needed for bootstrapping.

- Capture the AAA requirements needed for bootstrapping and
deployment, and work with the Radext and DiME WGs on the solutions.

- A Solution for MIP6 session continuity for dual stack hosts which
attach to IPv4 access networks. Additionally provide a mechanism
for carrying IPv4 packets via the Home agent for MIP6 capable
dual-stack hosts. This work will be done in collaboration with the
NEMO WG.

- A protocol based solution for enhancing the reliability of home
agents and a method to force a host to switch home agents.

- A mechanism to force an MN to switch the HA that is currently
serving it. This is required in deployments where the HA may need
to be taken offline for maintenance.

- Work on solutions to deal with firewalls and the problems that
firewalls cause as identified in RFC 4487.

Work items related to informational documentation include:

- Produce a problem statement relating to location privacy and the
use of Mobile IPv6. Work with the IRTF MOBOPTS RG on developing the
solution.

- Produce a design rationale that documents the historical
thinking behind the introduction of an alternative security
mechanism, the Authentication Protocol (RFC 4285).

It should be noted that some of the features that are directly related
to Mobile IPv6 are being worked on in the MONAMI6, MIPSHOP, and NEMO
working groups. The specific extensions from these groups are out of
scope for the MIP6 working group. In particular, all optimizations are
out of scope. However, MIP6 may assist these groups when they use
features listed above and have requirements on them.

Milestones:

Sep 2006 Submit I-D 'Motivation for Authentication I-D' to IESG
for publication as Informational.

Sep 2006 Submit I-D 'Bootstrapping solution for Integrated Scenario'
to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Oct 2006 Submit I-D 'Mobility management for Dual stack mobile nodes:
A Problem Statement' to IESG for publication as Informational.

Oct 2006 Submit I-D 'Goals for AAA HA Interface' to IESG for
publication as Informational.

Oct 2006 Submit I-D 'Address Location Privacy and Mobile IPv6 Problem
Statement' to IESG for publication as Informational.

Nov 2006 Submit I-D 'Bootstrapping solution for split Scenario' to IESG
for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Nov 2006 Submit I-D 'DHCP Options for Home Information Discovery in
MIPv6' for publication as a proposed standard.

Dec 2006 Submit I-D 'Home agent reliability' to IESG for publication
as a Proposed Standard.

Dec 2006 Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Dual-Stack Operation' to IESG for
publication as a Proposed Standard.

Dec 2006 Submit I-D 'Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message' to
IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Jan 2007 Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Experimental Allocations' to IESG for
publication as a Proposed Standard.

Feb 2007 Submit the I-D 'RADIUS Mobile IPv6 Support' to IESG for
publication as a proposed standard.

Apr 2007 Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Operation with Firewalls' to IESG
for publication as Informational.

May 2007 Submit I-D(s) related to specific updates and corrections
of RFC 3775 to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard.

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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:51:44 +0300

Based on the comments that we have
received, I'm making two small edits
to the charter:

- The scheduling date for the RADIUS work
  has been moved forward a few months,
  to accommodate possible delays resulting
  from the need to extend the RADIUS attribute
  space before additional applications can
  get their attributes defined.

- Added a specific maintenance work item
  to look into the multilink subnet issues.
  The intention is to perform an analysis of
  the cases where there is a problem, and to
  provide an update that describes how to
  avoid it.

The charter approval is up for discussion
in tomorrow's IESG meeting.

-----

Mobility for IPv6 (mip6)

Chair(s):

Internet Area Advisor:

Mailing Lists:

o RFC 3775
o RFC 3776

- Create and maintain an issue list that is generated on the basis of
implementation and interoperability experience. Address specific
issues with specific updates or revisions of the base
specification. One specific area of concern that should
be analyzed and addressed relates to multilink subnets.

This work item relates only to corrections and
clarifications. The working group shall not revisit design
decisions or change the protocol.

Milestones:

Oct 2006 Submit I-D 'Motivation for Authentication I-D' to IESG
for publication as Informational.

Oct 2006 Submit I-D 'Bootstrapping solution for Integrated Scenario'
to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Apr 2007 Submit the I-D 'RADIUS Mobile IPv6 Support' to IESG for
publication as a proposed standard.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:39:16 -0700

hi Jari,

>   provide an update that describes how to

can you send us more information on this? specifically
on what we are supposed to look for. document problems
that we might encounter when MIPv6 is run over multilink
subnets?

Vijay

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:52:36 +0300

Hi Vijay,
> that we might encounter when MIPv6 is run over multilink
The basic reference is the new IAB draft,
draft-iab-multilink-subnet-issues-00.txt.

I would like to see documentation of how
Mobile IPv6 is affected, and possibly, a short
RFC that updates RFC 3775 to remove or
reduce the problems. Note that its possible
that the problems are different depending
on how the protocol is deployed, e.g.,
real vs. virtual home networks.

--Jari

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:54:27 -0700

Hi Jari and Dave,

> draft-iab-multilink-subnet-issues-00.txt.

I went through this document.

first I was surprised when I saw the following
text

>    However, other WGs continued to allow for this concept even though 
>    it had been rejected in the IPv6 WG.  Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] allows 
>    tunnels to mobile nodes to use the same subnet as a home link, with 
>    the Home Agent doing layer 3 forwarding between them. 

I was surprised to see the MIPv6 home link and the
tunnels to each mobile node being compared to a
multi-link subnet. its not a multi-link subnet as
described in draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00.txt.
the home agent does not bridge and forward link-scope
traffic onto the tunnels.

the draft later on says

>    A multilink subnet model SHOULD NOT be used.  IETF WG's using, or 
>    considering using, multilink subnets today should investigate moving  
>    to one of the other models.  For example, Mobile IPv6 should 
>    investigate having the Home Agent not decrement the Hop Limit, and 
>    forward multicast traffic. 

currently no link local traffic sent on the home
link is forwarded over the Mobile IP tunnel to the
mobile node.

regarding forwarding multicast traffic RFC 3775
says the following.

    Interception and tunneling of the following multicast addressed
    packets on the home network are only done if the home agent supports
    multicast group membership control messages from the mobile node as
    described in the next section.  Tunneling of multicast packets to a
    mobile node follows similar limitations to those defined above for
    unicast packets addressed to the mobile node's link-local and site-
    local addresses.  Multicast packets addressed to a multicast address
    with link-local scope [3], to which the mobile node is subscribed,
    MUST NOT be tunneled to the mobile node.  These packets SHOULD be
    silently discarded (after delivering to other local multicast
    recipients).  Multicast packets addressed to a multicast address with
    a scope larger than link-local, but smaller than global (e.g., site-
    local and organization-local [3], to which the mobile node is
    subscribed, SHOULD NOT be tunneled to the mobile node.  Multicast
    packets addressed with a global scope, to which the mobile node has
    successfully subscribed, MUST be tunneled to the mobile node.

> reduce the problems. 

the current use of Mobile IP tunnels as an
extension of the home links does not introduce the
issues described with multi-link subnets in
draft-iab-multilink-subnet-issues. or I might be
missing something big.

comments?

Vijay

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:01:22 +0300

Well, that's why the charter says that the first part
of the task is to analyze if there is a problem.
And if it turns out that there is a problem, the
problem should be addressed.

And I'm sure review and feedback on the IAB document
is appreciated.

--Jari