Subject: RE: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6

From: "RIERA Julien RD-RESA-ISS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:23:11 +0200

Hello,
 
Here is my 2 cents,

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>
> I can't discuss this topic any further till someone tells us 
> why this is not proposed in NETLMM and why NETLMM is not 
> doing this. This whole topic should be addressed in NETLMM 
> not the MIP6 WG.

Bellow is my point of view on why NETLMM is (sadly) not the place.

Within the first Stefano's email we can read:
> a need to support IP mobility for hosts without the host playing a
role in managing mobility.
And
>There are several key benefits to using PMIPv6 as the network-based
mobility management protocol:

I understand the need Stefano's email pointed to is Mobility without
host involvement in managing mobility.
I can't find whether it specifically talks about a localized mobility
management or not.
I guess so it is about mobility in a large point of view, so global
mobility management.

Has it as been said,
> There was a GoMM bar BoF at last IETF about globalized mobility

Global MM's problem statement has been presented in this bar BoF (see
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-njedjou-netlmm-g
lobalmm-ps-01.txt), and the network-global-mobility interests in
different WGs (and RG).

NETLMM is focussing on Localized mobility management. They don't want to
work on global MM (whether Network-based or not).
(that explain why NETLMM is not the good place)

My understanding is that Stefano's email never asked for a MIP6-based
solution for network-based LOCALIZED MM (in this case Netlmm is the
place).

If the need is global mobility management without host involvement in
managing mobility, then I guess MIP6 could be the place.
And If we want the solution to be MIP6 based (as Stefano's mail suggest)
(whether PMIP or something else MIP6-based), MIP6 WG is the good place,
as Basavaraj Patil explained through the charter extract:

>"If you look at the current statement in the charter:
>" Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) specifies routing support to permit an IPv6 host
to >continue using its "permanent" home address as it moves around the
Internet.""

Regards,
Julien.

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

---

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 03:53:36 -0700

> mobility management protocol:

=> So far this is NETLMM.

 > I guess so it is about mobility in a large point of view, so global

=> Ah, I see, then this is something that needs to be clearly stated.
This is an entirely different game. I think you've just highlighted the
problem with stating the solution before stating the problem. It leads
to the kind of discussion that is going on now. Not a good way to get
people involved. So what we need to do is understand whether this is a
global mobility issue or a local mobility issue. 

I'll spare you the excitment and tell you what my next question will be
:) 
Regardless of the answer, I'll ask again why can't the netlmm protocol
be used or changed to accomodate the request. Protocol-wise, there is
very little difference, but of course other deployment problems will
come up with the network-based approach as I tried to explain in
draft-soliman-netlmm-harmful.

 > lobalmm-ps-01.txt), and the network-global-mobility interests in

=> Right, so you might want to propose a proper BoF for this. 

 > solution for network-based LOCALIZED MM (in this case Netlmm is the

=> In that case we should discuss the merits of the problem
independently of the solution.
If you think we need network-based MIP for global mobility, I would
completely disagree, but I'm willing to have an educated discussion
about this. What I cannot accept is being told what solution the WG
should work on when the problem was never discussed and agreed upon.
A bar BoF is not something that has any meaning in IETF, just a group of
people getting together that's all.

 > to >continue using its "permanent" home address as it moves 

=> Excluding words from a sentence doesn't imply inclusion! I'm sure
your car manual doesn't say "This car can't be driven in a river", but
that doesn't imply that your car is amphibious. 

If some people want to do global network-based mobility then they MUST
be willing to discuss this problem on its merit, not push to standardise
a particular solution. This is how IETF works. 

Hesham