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

From: "Faccin, Stefano M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:59:18 -0700

Hello all,

I'm sending this e-mail to start a thread of discussion on the need and
opportunities for a network-mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6. 

As a result of offline discussions between interested parties, we would
like to submit the following to begin a discussion on this mailing list.

=================================================================
Recent developments in network architectures in SDOs such as WiMAX forum
and 3GPP2 have identified a need to support IP mobility for hosts
without the host playing a role in managing mobility. Significant
interest exists for a network based IP mobility solution based on Mobile
IPv6. The choice of Mobile IPv6 as the mobility protocol for IPv6 is
driving the need to have a solution for network based mobility that is
also based on or derived from MIPv6. One of the key benefits that been
identified for a network based MIP6 solution (referred to as Proxy MIP6)
is the optimized use of the air interface resulting from no MIP6
signaling and no tunneling of packets over the air interface.

The WiMAX network architecture currently supports Proxy MIP4 for
enabling mobility for hosts that may not have a MIP4 client. MIPv6 has
been adopted as the mobility solution for IPv6. There exists a
requirement to support mobility for IPv6 hosts without having any
explicit expectations of the host IPv6 capability. Proxy MIP6 is a
solution that is aligned with the architectural direction of WiMAX,
given the specification of Proxy MIP4 for IPv4 mobility and hence a
similar approach for IPv6 mobility.

In 3GPP, there has been some degree of interest in Proxy MIPv6 as well,
primarily in the SAE (System Architecture Evolution) work item. No
decision or protocol choices have been made yet.

3GPP2 has expressed some interest in pursuing a network-based IP
mobility protocol in order to support hosts with no mobility stack
(those that use Simple IP) to take advantage of some form of mobility
provided by the same entities that handle host-based (MIPv6-based)
mobility. No decision on the specific protocol has been finalized yet,
although a network-based IP mobility solution based on MIP6 has been
identified as a viable option.

There are several key benefits to using PMIPv6 as the network-based
mobility management protocol: 
- The same MIPv6 home agent can be used be used at the same time with
little or no modifications for clients that support MIPv6 and for
clients that don't have host mobility software and would like the
network to handle mobility for them.
- Re-use of supporting work that has been done for MIPv6. This includes
the ability to establish security associations, RADIUS and Diameter
extensions, bootstrapping, dual stack support, reliability, fail over
and HA switching.

So we would like to propose adding a new item to the MIP6 WG charter to
standardize proxy MIPv6. The goal of this work would be to specify a
simple extension to MIPv6 that would support network based mobility for
IPv6 hosts and reuses MIP6 signaling and features. It is not intended to
be a new network-based mobility protocol solution.

A couple of I-Ds specifying network-based mobility management protocol
derived from MIPv6 exist today and can be used as the baseline for the
work.

In conclusion, we think that the MIP6 WG should take on this work in
order to meet a requirement of networks that will be deployed in the
near future.

========================================================================

Comments are welcome.
Stefano

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

---

From: "Conny Larsson (KI/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:57:36 +0200

Hi Stefano,

Mobile IPv6 and additional protocols for handover optimization etc. could
most likely be used in the way you propose in your mail.

What would be good to clarify is how this work relates to the work done in
the Netlmm working group. My understanding is that the Netlmm WG is trying
to solve the network mobility problem, although not proposing proxy MIPv6,
but a new protocol.

It would also be good to understand why the Netlmm WG decided to propose a
new protocol. The members of the design team that came up with the proposal
are all very good on mobility related issues. So my conclusion, without
knowing the motivation, is that there are good reasons for designing a new
protocol otherwise they would not have proposed it.

Regards
Conny

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:53:16 +0200

There was a lot of discussion about PMIP during the netlmm bof inception
phase.  PMIP was not chosen for netlmm WG.  What do you think about that?

There was a GoMM bar BoF at last IETF about globalized mobility
management at last IETF, led by Eric Ndjedjou.  Should PMIP be the
globalized mobility management protocol?

There is currently a DSMI (dual-stack mobile internet v4-v6) BoF-no-BoF
discussed on netlmm and related lists, heading towards not-WG'ing but
BoF'ing.  What do you think about that IPv4 and IPv6?

Alex

Faccin, Stefano M wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I'm sending this e-mail to start a thread of discussion on the need 
> and opportunities for a network-mobility solution based on Mobile 
> IPv6.
> 
> As a result of offline discussions between interested parties, we 
> would like to submit the following to begin a discussion on this 
> mailing list.
> 
> Recent developments in network architectures in SDOs such as WiMAX 
> forum and 3GPP2 have identified a need to support IP mobility for 
> hosts without the host playing a role in managing mobility. 
> Significant interest exists for a network based IP mobility solution 
> based on Mobile IPv6. The choice of Mobile IPv6 as the mobility 
> protocol for IPv6 is driving the need to have a solution for network 
> based mobility that is also based on or derived from MIPv6. One of 
> the key benefits that been identified for a network based MIP6 
> solution (referred to as Proxy MIP6) is the optimized use of the air 
> interface resulting from no MIP6 signaling and no tunneling of 
> packets over the air interface.
> 
> enabling mobility for hosts that may not have a MIP4 client. MIPv6 
> has been adopted as the mobility solution for IPv6. There exists a 
> In 3GPP, there has been some degree of interest in Proxy MIPv6 as 
> well, primarily in the SAE (System Architecture Evolution) work item.
>  No decision or protocol choices have been made yet.
> 
> mobility. No decision on the specific protocol has been finalized 
> yet, although a network-based IP mobility solution based on MIP6 has 
> been identified as a viable option.
> 
> mobility management protocol: - The same MIPv6 home agent can be used
>  be used at the same time with little or no modifications for clients
>  that support MIPv6 and for clients that don't have host mobility 
> software and would like the network to handle mobility for them. - 
> Re-use of supporting work that has been done for MIPv6. This includes
>  extensions, bootstrapping, dual stack support, reliability, fail
> over and HA switching.
> 
> So we would like to propose adding a new item to the MIP6 WG charter 
> to standardize proxy MIPv6. The goal of this work would be to specify
>  a simple extension to MIPv6 that would support network based
> mobility for IPv6 hosts and reuses MIP6 signaling and features. It is
> not intended to be a new network-based mobility protocol solution.
> 
> A couple of I-Ds specifying network-based mobility management 
> protocol derived from MIPv6 exist today and can be used as the 
> baseline for the work.
> 
> Comments are welcome. Stefano
> 
> _______________________________________________ Mip6 mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
>

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:12:41 -0700

Conny Larsson (KI/EAB) wrote:

> new protocol. 

I guess we would know when the NETLMM DT archives
become public.

Vijay

The members of the design team that came up with the proposal
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:49:37 -0700

I oppose the idea of defining a PMIP solution in this WG.

Just from IETF procedure point of view I am not sure how MIP6 WG can
develop PMIPv6 while NETLMM WG exists. I do not see how the IETF can
justify the existence of two parallel efforts for the development of a
network based mobility management solution.

Besides, I am not sure why the IETF would compound one error (creation
of NETLMM WG) with another (starting PMIPv6 work in MIPv6 WG), when a
lot of people in the IETF believe that NETLMM solutions should not exist
at all (see draft-soliman-netlmm-harmful-00.txt)

I have no idea why MIP6 WG would be willing to create a broken version
of its own protocol. People are free to create a proxy version of any
protocol they like and the Internet is full of such contraptions, but
that does not mean that the IETF should go out and bless every one of
them.  PMIPv4 is a perfect example. PMIPv4 is being used in the industry
but the IETF has nothing to do with it.

George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Faccin, Stefano M [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:59 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6
> 
> Hello all,
> 
and
> As a result of offline discussions between interested parties, we
would
> like to submit the following to begin a discussion on this mailing
list.
forum
> In 3GPP, there has been some degree of interest in Proxy MIPv6 as
well,
> So we would like to propose adding a new item to the MIP6 WG charter
to

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:52:41 +0200

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>> It would also be good to understand why the Netlmm WG decided to 
>> propose a new protocol.
> 
> I guess we would know when the NETLMM DT archives become public.

The DT was formed after the PMIP discussion, which is public, probably
on vesuvio.

Alex

>> are all very good on mobility related issues. So my conclusion,
>> without knowing the motivation, is that there are good reasons for
>> designing a new protocol otherwise they would not have proposed it.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards Conny
>> 
>> Faccin, Stefano M wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello all,
>>> 
>>> I'm sending this e-mail to start a thread of discussion on the
>>> need and opportunities for a network-mobility solution based on
>>> Mobile IPv6.
>>> 
>>>  Recent developments in network architectures in SDOs such as
>>> WiMAX forum and 3GPP2 have identified a need to support IP
>>> mobility for hosts without the host playing a role in managing
>>> mobility. Significant interest exists for a network based IP
>>> mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6. The choice of Mobile IPv6
>>> as the mobility protocol for IPv6 is driving the need to have a
>>> solution for network based mobility that is also based on or
>>> derived from MIPv6. One of the key benefits that been identified
>>> for a network based MIP6 solution (referred to as Proxy MIP6) is
>>> the optimized use of the air interface resulting from no MIP6 
>>> enabling mobility for hosts that may not have a MIP4 client.
>>> MIPv6 has been adopted as the mobility solution for IPv6. There
>>> exists a requirement to support mobility for IPv6 hosts without
>>> having any explicit expectations of the host IPv6 capability.
>>> Proxy MIP6 is a solution that is aligned with the architectural
>>> direction of WiMAX, given the specification of Proxy MIP4 for
>>> IPv4 mobility and hence a similar approach for IPv6 mobility.
>>> 
>>> well, primarily in the SAE (System Architecture Evolution) work
>>> item. No decision or protocol choices have been made yet.
>>> 
>>> mobility protocol in order to support hosts with no mobility
>>> stack (those that use Simple IP) to take advantage of some form
>>> of mobility provided by the same entities that handle host-based
>>> (MIPv6-based) mobility. No decision on the specific protocol has
>>> been finalized yet, although a network-based IP mobility solution
>>> based on MIP6 has been identified as a viable option.
>>> 
>>> There are several key benefits to using PMIPv6 as the
>>> network-based mobility management protocol: - The same MIPv6 home
>>> agent can be used be used at the same time with little or no
>>> modifications for clients that support MIPv6 and for clients that
>>> don't have host mobility software and would like the network to
>>> handle mobility for them. - Re-use of supporting work that has
>>> been done for MIPv6. This includes the ability to establish
>>> security associations, RADIUS and Diameter extensions,
>>> bootstrapping, dual stack support, reliability, fail over and HA
>>> switching.
>>> 
>>> So we would like to propose adding a new item to the MIP6 WG
>>> charter to standardize proxy MIPv6. The goal of this work would
>>> be to specify a simple extension to MIPv6 that would support
>>> network based mobility for IPv6 hosts and reuses MIP6 signaling
>>> and features. It is not intended to be a new network-based
>>> mobility protocol solution.
>>> 
>>> In conclusion, we think that the MIP6 WG should take on this work
>>> in order to meet a requirement of networks that will be deployed
>>> in the near future.
>>>

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:20:08 -0500

Let me chime in here with a few thoughts, speaking without WG chair hat on:

> network based mobility management solution.

I think that a Proxy MIP6 solution is not directly a parallel effort if you
were to consider the work being done in Netlmm. From my (simplistic) view, I
perceive Netlmm to be developing a solution for mobility of a host within an
access network, i.e localized mobility. MIP6 deals with mobility, period and
does not differentiate between local and global scope. The PMIPv6 proposal
is not aiming to solve the localized mobility problem. It is simply
proposing a mobility solution without host involvement. Now whether that is
the right thing to do from the perspective of industry needs, deployments,
Internet principles etc. are what we need to debate here.
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. "
This statement does not imply that the host has to be involved to maintain
or continue using its HoA as it moves around. The current protocol no doubt
is a host based Mobility protocol. The proposal is to extend capability for
a host to maintain its "permanent" home address via means such as a proxy
while leveraging the existence of the anchor (HA) and the signaling messages
and security that exist.
 
> but the IETF has nothing to do with it.

Is it better that the IETF actually produce work that is useful and deployed
in the industry? It makes more sense for the IETF to specify the protocols
that the industry wants to ensure that they are done right instead of hacks
that get implemented and deployed on the Internet anyway. The relevance of
the IETF is at question. It makes sense that the IETF develop solutions that
are actually going to be adopted and deployed.
I would like to add in the same sentence that the IETF should also be able
to indicate why something is a bad idea and the problems associated with
taking a certain route in concrete terms and help the industry or SDOs
understand implications of decisions that may essentially bypass IETF RFCs
and extend protocols in ways that may be harmful.

-Raj

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:35:40 -0700

All,
I saw the long list of emails and decided I'll just respond to the first
in the thread :) 

I see that the industry is looking for a Proxy MIP6 solution, as Stefano
clearly points out. It is a question of whether we want to let each SDO
muck with MIP6 the way it deems fit or whether we should specify it in
the IETF and achieve clarity and interoperability in a straightforward
manner. I think the latter is the way to go. 

As has been pointed out by a few here, it is not pure plug and play of
MIP6 with a "proxy MN" - there are some differences, which is what calls
for a separate specification. OTOH, the delta is not vast - which makes
re-use of several features a powerful reason why Proxy MIP6 is a good
thing for a network-based solution. 

Stefano mentions this as a need in the short-term - I actually think
this may not be that short-term after all! There seems to be a need for
this fairly soon, but not sure if it won't last for longer than what we
might call "short-term". 

Hence, I do think the IETF should take on this work. 

Vidya

> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 6:59 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> I'm sending this e-mail to start a thread of discussion on 
> the need and opportunities for a network-mobility solution 
> based on Mobile IPv6. 
> 
> As a result of offline discussions between interested 
> parties, we would like to submit the following to begin a 
> discussion on this mailing list.
> 
> mobility for hosts without the host playing a role in 
> managing mobility. Significant interest exists for a network 
> based IP mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6. The choice 
> of Mobile IPv6 as the mobility protocol for IPv6 is driving 
> the need to have a solution for network based mobility that 
> is also based on or derived from MIPv6. One of the key 
> benefits that been identified for a network based MIP6 
> solution (referred to as Proxy MIP6) is the optimized use of 
> the air interface resulting from no MIP6 signaling and no 
> tunneling of packets over the air interface.
> 
> The WiMAX network architecture currently supports Proxy MIP4 
> for enabling mobility for hosts that may not have a MIP4 
> client. MIPv6 has been adopted as the mobility solution for 
> IPv6. There exists a requirement to support mobility for IPv6 
> hosts without having any explicit expectations of the host 
> IPv6 capability. Proxy MIP6 is a solution that is aligned 
> with the architectural direction of WiMAX, given the 
> specification of Proxy MIP4 for IPv4 mobility and hence a 
> In 3GPP, there has been some degree of interest in Proxy 
> MIPv6 as well, primarily in the SAE (System Architecture 
> Evolution) work item. No decision or protocol choices have 
> been made yet.
> 
> 3GPP2 has expressed some interest in pursuing a network-based 
> IP mobility protocol in order to support hosts with no 
> mobility stack (those that use Simple IP) to take advantage 
> of some form of mobility provided by the same entities that 
> handle host-based (MIPv6-based) mobility. No decision on the 
> specific protocol has been finalized yet, although a 
> network-based IP mobility solution based on MIP6 has been 
> network-based mobility management protocol: 
> - The same MIPv6 home agent can be used be used at the same 
> time with little or no modifications for clients that support 
> MIPv6 and for clients that don't have host mobility software 
> and would like the network to handle mobility for them.
> - Re-use of supporting work that has been done for MIPv6. 
> This includes the ability to establish security associations, 
> RADIUS and Diameter extensions, bootstrapping, dual stack 
> support, reliability, fail over and HA switching.
> 
> charter to standardize proxy MIPv6. The goal of this work 
> would be to specify a simple extension to MIPv6 that would 
> support network based mobility for
> IPv6 hosts and reuses MIP6 signaling and features. It is not 
> intended to be a new network-based mobility protocol solution.
> 
> protocol derived from MIPv6 exist today and can be used as 
> the baseline for the work.
> 
> In conclusion, we think that the MIP6 WG should take on this 
> work in order to meet a requirement of networks that will be 
> deployed in the near future.
>

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:42:15 -0700

> 
> There was a lot of discussion about PMIP during the netlmm 
> bof inception phase.  PMIP was not chosen for netlmm WG.  
> What do you think about that?
> 

It is sad that the NETLMM WG failed to see the practical use and the
industry need for this. But, as we are seeing, that is not stopping the
industry from continuing to proceed in the direction of PMIP6 for
certain needs. Given that, regardless of the direction that the NETLMM
WG seems to have taken, we need to ensure that the industry interests
are standardized in the right manner, especially when it falls in the
realm of the IETF. 

> There was a GoMM bar BoF at last IETF about globalized 
> mobility management at last IETF, led by Eric Ndjedjou.  
> Should PMIP be the globalized mobility management protocol?
> 

It is all about ensuring the existance of trust relationships between
the HA and the endpoint performing the proxy MN signaling. I personally
believe it is impractical to stretch this to a "global" domain, so to
say. But, if deployments can ensure security associations, there is no
theoretical problem. So, the IETF specification must be providing strict
guidelines for securing the signaling and that's all we can really do. 

> There is currently a DSMI (dual-stack mobile internet v4-v6) 
> BoF-no-BoF discussed on netlmm and related lists, heading 
> towards not-WG'ing but BoF'ing.  What do you think about that 
> IPv4 and IPv6?
> 

By adapting MIP6, PMIP6 can inherently support DS-MIP6. So, I don't see
a problem. 

Vidya

> > based mobility that is also based on or derived from MIPv6. 
> One of the 
> > key benefits that been identified for a network based MIP6 solution 
> > (referred to as Proxy MIP6) is the optimized use of the air 
> interface 
> > resulting from no MIP6 signaling and no tunneling of 
> packets over the 
> > air interface.
> > 
> > a simple extension to MIPv6 that would support network 
> based mobility 
> > for IPv6 hosts and reuses MIP6 signaling and features. It is not

---

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:51:56 -0700

Thanks Raj,

I wish everyone made their intentions as clear as you do :-) 
>From your e-mail I suggest that you have two options:

1) Call for a BOF on Global NETLMM
You say that this effort will be different from NETLMM, in that it will
not be focused on local mobility but it will be focused on the bigger
picture. This has not seen much acceptance in recent IETF meetings. Even
if people support such an effort, however, I do not see how work on this
can start before NETLMM completes its work on the micro-mobility version
of this. 

2) Call for a micro-mobility BOF
Since you want to go back to the basics of the charter, which talks
about "routing support", maybe the real question is whether we need a
micro-mobility protocol. Then Host routing solutions as well as tunneled
solutions can be investigated. But wait, NETLMM already decided to come
up with a tunneling solution to this problem and it is not PMIPv6 based.

So, no matter how to view this, you are stepping on NETLMM territory.

George
> From: Basavaraj Patil [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:20 PM
> To: Tsirtsis, George; Faccin, Stefano M; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on Mobile
IPv6
> I think that a Proxy MIP6 solution is not directly a parallel effort
if
> you
> were to consider the work being done in Netlmm. From my (simplistic)
view,
> I
> perceive Netlmm to be developing a solution for mobility of a host
within
> an
> access network, i.e localized mobility. MIP6 deals with mobility,
period
> proposing a mobility solution without host involvement. Now whether
that
> is
> is a host based Mobility protocol. The proposal is to extend
capability
> for
> the IETF is at question. It makes sense that the IETF develop
solutions
> that
has
> >> mobility. No decision on the specific protocol has been finalized
yet,
> >> extensions, bootstrapping, dual stack support, reliability, fail
over
> >> So we would like to propose adding a new item to the MIP6 WG
charter
> >> IPv6 hosts and reuses MIP6 signaling and features. It is not
intended
> >> A couple of I-Ds specifying network-based mobility management
protocol
> >> In conclusion, we think that the MIP6 WG should take on this work
in

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:54:06 -0700 (PDT)

I also agree that this work can be undertaken. Like in similar cases in the past, I suggest that a big IESG note be added to the resulting document.
 
Unfortunately I do not share Vidya's views that this might be a long term "thing".
 
--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
To: "Faccin, Stefano M" <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:35:40 PM
Subject: RE: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6

All,

Vidya

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:20:24 -0700

Let me clarify something here - I don't *want* this to be long term - I
hope we can design forward looking systems to use the cleaner approach
of host-based mobility. But, I was just pointing out that "short" and
"long" are subjective in meaning and actually don't mean anything to the
protocol design :) 
 
BTW, I don't see any need for any IESG notes - that is jumping ahead
with lack of confidence that we can design the solution properly. As
long as the solution is clearly specified and points out the appropriate
scenarios for use, there should be no confusion. 
 
Vidya

________________________________

	From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:54 AM
	To: Narayanan, Vidya
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: Re: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on
Mobile IPv6

	I also agree that this work can be undertaken. Like in similar
cases in the past, I suggest that a big IESG note be added to the
resulting document.
	 
	Unfortunately I do not share Vidya's views that this might be a
long term "thing".
	 
	--behcet

	----- Original Message ----
	From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
	To: "Faccin, Stefano M" <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked]
	Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:35:40 PM
	Subject: RE: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on
Mobile IPv6

	All,
	I saw the long list of emails and decided I'll just respond to
the first
	in the thread :) 
	
	I see that the industry is looking for a Proxy MIP6 solution, as
Stefano
	clearly points out. It is a question of whether we want to let
each SDO
	muck with MIP6 the way it deems fit or whether we should specify
it in
	the IETF and achieve clarity and interoperability in a
straightforward
	manner. I think the latter is the way to go. 
	
	As has been pointed out by a few here, it is not pure plug and
play of
	MIP6 with a "proxy MN" - there are some differences, which is
what calls
	for a separate specification. OTOH, the delta is not vast -
which makes
	re-use of several features a powerful reason why Proxy MIP6 is a
good
	thing for a network-based solution. 
	
	Stefano mentions this as a need in the short-term - I actually
think
	this may not be that short-term after all! There seems to be a
need for
	this fairly soon, but not sure if it won't last for longer than
what we
	might call "short-term". 

	Vidya

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:10:29 +0200

Stefano, let me come back to the original post...

> and opportunities for a network-mobility solution based on Mobile 

That's NEMOv6 network mobility.

> hosts without the host playing a role in managing mobility.

That's localized mobility management, and it's netlmm.

> packets over the air interface.

netlmm does the the same: no tunnelling to end host and no MIP6
signalling over the air interface.  Have they looked at netlmm?  What do
they think about it?

> enabling mobility for hosts that may not have a MIP4 client.

That is typical for  WiMax and other SDOs assertions.  If WiMax deploys
Proxy MIP4 and there is not IETF draft (not even one individual
proposal!) then why do you think it will change with MIP6?

> having any explicit expectations of the host IPv6 capability. Proxy 
> MIP6 is a solution that is aligned with the architectural direction 
> of WiMAX, given the specification of Proxy MIP4 for IPv4 mobility and
>  hence a similar approach for IPv6 mobility.

What is the "architectural direction of WiMax"?  How can this WG follow
the WiMax "architectural direction"?

> mobility.

The core network entities that handle MIP6 MNs are these: Home Agents.
Home Agents work ok within a netlmm deployment.  Has 3GPP2 checked
netlmm?  Have they an oppinion on netlmm?

> No decision on the specific protocol has been finalized yet, although
>  a network-based IP mobility solution based on MIP6 has been 

Who said MIP6 is a viable option for network-based IP mobility solution,
within a 3G system?  Any reference?  I don't think vanilla MIP6 is good
enough for a 3G system.  It has too much tunnelling overhead and the MN
is never at home.

>  be used at the same time with little or no modifications

"Little" is too little said.  The HA needs to have a security
relationship with AR.  Vanilla ("pukka" if you wish) MIP6 doesn't do
that.  There are several efforts in IETF to obtain that (see FMIPv6
and/or HMIPv6 MAP-oAR-MN security), does SDO have an oppinion on these?

The whole model of MN-HA-CN security of MIPv6 doesn't apply when the MN
is not involved (i.e. IPsec, bootstrapping, RR).  All that has to be
different.

>  the ability to establish security associations, RADIUS and Diameter
If it's the AR (and not the MN) doing Radius on behalf of the MN then
there is no readily available work to be re-used.  Also, consider that
an MN will do Radius/Diameter regardless of having a MIP6 stack or not.

> extensions, bootstrapping, dual stack support, reliability, fail over

With vanilla MIP6 the MN bootstraps some data for itself.  How AR will
bootstrap data on behalf of MN?  What will be the real MN bootstrapping
when MIP6 bootstrapping is not in MN?

If PMIPv6 wants to have MIP6 bootstrapping on MN then it has to have
MIP6 on MN, so the host is involved in mobility.

How can an HA do load balancing of some ARs?  The HA load balances its
MN load, not AR load.

HA switching: the MN sends a HA switch message to HA.  How can AR send a
HA switch message on behalf of some MN?  Or, if MN has no MIP, how does
the AR make a decision switching its own HA based on the number of MNs
attached to it?

All this is not specified and has not been discussed publicly.
Qualifying them as "simple reuse" sounds a little disrespectful to those
who will - or probably are already - involved in the work.

> protocol derived from MIPv6 exist today and can be used as the 

Sorry, these drafts don't exist publicly.

There is a difference between saying some drafts can be written, and
some drafts do exist.

And please don't suggest they will be used as a "baseline" for any
future work.  This is completely disrespectful for people who have same
interests and who can write drafts as well.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:19:46 +0200

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
>> There was a lot of discussion about PMIP during the netlmm bof 
>> inception phase.  PMIP was not chosen for netlmm WG. What do you 
>> think about that?
>> 
> 
>  industry need for this. But, as we are seeing, that is not stopping 
> the industry from continuing to proceed in the direction of PMIP6 for
>  certain needs.

It is sad to hear that.  I am not sure whether the original post here
reflects a continuation of PMIP6 support in WiMax or just an echo of
some long known facts.

> Given that, regardless of the direction that the NETLMM WG seems to 
> have taken, we need to ensure that the industry interests are 
> standardized in the right manner, especially when it falls in the 
> realm of the IETF.
> 
>  the HA and the endpoint performing the proxy MN signaling. I 
> personally believe it is impractical to stretch this to a "global" 
> domain, so to say. But, if deployments can ensure security 
> associations, there is no theoretical problem. So, the IETF 
> specification must be providing strict guidelines for securing the 
> signaling and that's all we can really do.

I'm not sure I get that...  The existence of a trust relationship model
applies to an equal degree to PMIPv6 as well.  However, the GoMM trust
has been discussed publicly, raised on the mike, etc.

>> BoF-no-BoF discussed on netlmm and related lists, heading towards 
>> not-WG'ing but BoF'ing.  What do you think about that IPv4 and 
>> IPv6?
>> 
> 
> By adapting MIP6, PMIP6 can inherently support DS-MIP6. So, I don't 
> see a problem.

So you have a solution?

I see many unexplored fields in adapting DS-MIPv6 to AR instead of
running it on MN.  A DS-MIPv6 MN can attach to either an IPv4 or to an
IPv6 AR.  What is a PMIP-DSMIPv6 AR?  Is it offering IPv4 or IPv6 to MN?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:25:12 +0200

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> long as the solution is clearly specified and points out the 
> appropriate scenarios for use, there should be no confusion.

I am not sure I understand that.  Do you request an IESG note?  Or you
don't want an IESG note?

It surprises me sooooo much we talk about a PMIP6 _solution_ here.  Many
people here have followed the creation of the netlmm WG.  And the work
it needs with a proper problem statement, threat analysis and requirements.

I can't even imagine that we can simply add a line in a Charter
supported by existing unpublished solution drafts that will become
baselines for _the_ solution.

Alex

>  *From:* Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] *Sent:* 
> Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:54 AM *To:* Narayanan, Vidya *Cc:* 
> [email-masked] *Subject:* Re: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution 
> based on Mobile IPv6
> 
> I also agree that this work can be undertaken. Like in similar cases
>  in the past, I suggest that a big IESG note be added to the
> resulting document.
> 
> ----- Original Message ---- From: "Narayanan, Vidya" 
> <[email-masked]> To: "Faccin, Stefano M" 
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] Sent: Thursday, September
>  21, 2006 12:35:40 PM Subject: RE: [Mip6] On a network-mobility 
> solution based on Mobile IPv6
> 
> All, I saw the long list of emails and decided I'll just respond to 
> the first in the thread :)
> 
> Stefano clearly points out. It is a question of whether we want to 
> let each SDO muck with MIP6 the way it deems fit or whether we should
>  specify it in the IETF and achieve clarity and interoperability in a
>  straightforward manner. I think the latter is the way to go.
> 
> As has been pointed out by a few here, it is not pure plug and play 
> of MIP6 with a "proxy MN" - there are some differences, which is what
>  calls for a separate specification. OTOH, the delta is not vast - 
> which makes re-use of several features a powerful reason why Proxy 
> MIP6 is a good thing for a network-based solution.
> 
>  this may not be that short-term after all! There seems to be a need 
> for this fairly soon, but not sure if it won't last for longer than 
> what we might call "short-term".
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Faccin, Stefano M 
>> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 
>> 2006 6:59 PM To: [email-masked] Subject: [Mip6] On a 
>> network-mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6
>> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> Significant interest exists for a network based IP mobility 
>> solution based on Mobile IPv6. The choice of Mobile IPv6 as the 
>> mobility protocol for IPv6 is driving the need to have a solution 
>> for network based mobility that is also based on or derived from 
>> MIPv6. One of the key benefits that been identified for a network 
>> based MIP6 solution (referred to as Proxy MIP6) is the optimized 
>> use of the air interface resulting from no MIP6 signaling and no 
>>  given the specification of Proxy MIP4 for IPv4 mobility and hence
>> a similar approach for IPv6 mobility.
>> 
>> (those that use Simple IP) to take advantage of some form of 
>> mobility provided by the same entities that handle host-based 
>>  mobility management protocol: - The same MIPv6 home agent can be 
>> used be used at the same time with little or no modifications for 
>> clients that support MIPv6 and for clients that don't have host 
>> mobility software and would like the network to handle mobility for
>>  them. - Re-use of supporting work that has been done for MIPv6. 
>> RADIUS and Diameter extensions, bootstrapping, dual stack support, 
>> reliability, fail over and HA switching.
>> 
>> charter to standardize proxy MIPv6. The goal of this work would be 
>> to specify a simple extension to MIPv6 that would support network 
>> based mobility for IPv6 hosts and reuses MIP6 signaling and 
>> features. It is not intended to be a new network-based mobility 
>> protocol solution.
>> 
>> in order to meet a requirement of networks that will be deployed in
>>  the near future.
>>

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:08:34 -0700

I support the work. I don't want to see each SDO
develop their own version of PMIPv6.

Vijay

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:36:30 +0200

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> I support the work. I don't want to see each SDO develop their own 
> version of PMIPv6.

Make 3GPP talk to WiMax then.

802.21 people made 802.16 people talk to 802.11 people, suggested that
maybe IETF is a good place to solve differends, and as a result 802.21
work in mipshop is advancing at speeds far from the initially expected.

For the record, initially 802.21 mipshop was planned only as a
simple data encoding together with a good choice of a transport protocol.

Alex

>> IPv6. As a result of offline discussions between interested 
>>  solution that is aligned with the architectural direction of
>> WiMAX, given the specification of Proxy MIP4 for IPv4 mobility and

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:56:08 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Alex,
  The relevant drafts are:
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-gundavelli-netlmm-mip6-proxy-00.txt
this draft does not talk about route optimization, and
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-soliman-netlmm-harmful-00.txt
 
Regards,
 
--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
To: "Faccin, Stefano M" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:10:29 PM
Subject: Re: On a network-based mobility solution (was: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6)

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:57:14 +0200

> it needs with a proper problem statement, threat analysis and requirements.

I stand by this.

> supported by existing unpublished solution drafts

I stand corrected on this, I have been privately corrected to point to 
the following:
http://www.join.uni-muenster.de/Dokumente/drafts/draft-gundavelli-netlmm-mip6-proxy-00.txt
and
draft-chowdhury-netmip6-00

The first was already proposed during the netlmm BoF.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:05:47 +0200

Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Alex, The relevant drafts are: 
Sure, thanks, I stand corrected.  That was proposed to netlmm BoF.
Prior to that presentation there was a lot of discussion on netlmm list
regarding PMIP or no PMIP in netlmm.  There were some very good
arguments made pro/against and I wonder how these arguments are seen by
PMIP proponents.

> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-soliman-netlmm-harmful-00.txt

This draft talks about why not good to Charter the netlmm WG and do
H/FMIPv6 instead.  The idea around this has been largely discussed on
the int-area list.  The fundamental issue network-vs-mobile controlled
mobility is still there, whether PMIPv6 or netlmm.

Alex

---

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:13:02 -0700

Before we get lost in arguments and counter arguments from the same set
of people it would be nice to get a few opinions from different people
here.

George

---

From: "Gerardo Giaretta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:45:32 +0200

I agree with Vijay. Based on my personal experience and attendance in
3GPP, I see several companies proposing PMIPv6 for various scenarios
in SAE work item. Even though there is not any decision yet, I think
IETF should take care of PMIPv6 specification. At least we are sure to
have a good protocol design since IETF has the skills to do that and
we are sure to have an interoperable solution for any SDO: talking
from an operator perspective, what I really don't want is to have a
WiMAX PMIPv6 version, a 3GPP PMIPv6 version and a 3GPP2 PMIPv6
version.

--Gerardo

---

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 02:24:56 -0700

> in SAE work item. 

=> So why aren't you doing this in NETLMM?? 

   Even though there is not any decision yet, I think
 > have a good protocol design since IETF has the skills to do that 

=> Yes when the idea is useful and is done in the right WG. In this case
the whole concept is broken and is NOT proposed to the relevant WG. 

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. If the proponents
of PMIP are against the product of NETLMM then deal with it there not
here. 

Hesham

---

From: "Gerardo Giaretta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:16:37 +0200

Hello Hesham,

> => So why aren't you doing this in NETLMM??

Am I doing PMIPv6 in NETLMM WG? It seems not, since in NETLMM WG we
are defining a new protocol.

I stated that there are companies in 3GPP proposing PMIPv6. And since
some others companies are interested in PMIPv6 in other SDOs, from an
operator perspective I would like to have PMIPv6 standardized in IETF
in order to have a unique solution. Do you think this is a strange
requirement for an operator?

Personally, I'm still interested in NETLMM, but I see it as another
network based solution with some benefits and some drawbacks if
compared to PMIPv6.

> the whole concept is broken and is NOT proposed to the relevant WG.

Well, you think the concept is broken, but it seems that other experts
in IP mobility (I'm not including myself) do think that the concept is
useful and not broken at all.

And some operators are interested in PMIPv6 and in deploying it even
though you think the idea is not useful.

Regards,
--Gerardo

---

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:38:09 -0700

> requirement for an operator?

=> No, but I do think it's strange that as an operator you don't feed
that input into the protocol being done in netlmm. One of the pillars of
justifications for netlmm was exactly what you mention above about
operator needs and other SDOs. So if that's the case, why isn't PMIP
*the* netlmm protocol, or something like it (if other SDOs want it). Why
is netlmm defining another "new" protocol? And if there is a reason, why
is it different in MIP6? I don't see any technical reason that would
change from one WG to another. 

 > network based solution with some benefits and some drawbacks if

=> Well, IMO we only need one network-based protocol in our lives. Also,
having two protocols  seems to contradict your argument for avoiding a
situation where each SDO goes in a different direction. 

 > useful and not broken at all.

=> I've already expressed my opinions on that in detail and only *one*
person cared to read and comment on those opinions publicly. If people
have strong technical reasons then they should be able to discuss them
publicly, not in private. Sadly, that's not the case.
 
So in order to progress I think we should require:
- Justification for the problem
- Why existing protocols can't fix it (including Netlmm). 
- If the two points above are answered then the last question is where
to do it. 

Skipping the first two points or simply saying "operators want it" or
"my customer asked me for it" doesn't sound very expertly to me. It
sounds more like a news bulletin, not something we can work with in an
engineering organisation.

Hesham

---

From: "Gerardo Giaretta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:13:34 +0200

> change from one WG to another.

In my view the two protocols have different requirements and therefore
different technical benefits.

NETLMM WG is defining a protocol that is optimized for a localized
network-based mobility (e.g. security associations between MAG and LMA
are not per MN). This is why NETLMM is defining a new protocol and not
re-using MIP signaling or MIP HAs.

PMIPv6 may be used in scenarios where operators have also interest in
host-based MIPv6, in order to handle some hosts in a network-based
manner, keeping a common infrastructure for host based and network
based mobility. PMIPv6, compared to NETLMM, may have some drawbacks in
term of efficiency, but may have some benefits from a deployment
perspective in some scenarios.

Therefore, I don't see the two protocols solving the same problem in
the same scenario.

> situation where each SDO goes in a different direction.

We will try to work in other SDOs to have one solution, no matter if
NETLMM or PMIPv6. What I really don't want is to have different
flavours of the same protocol defined in different SDOs. The problem
is that if SDOs are really interested in PMIPv6, they will specify
different flavours on their own if IETF does not work on a solution
now. This is what I would like to avoid.

--Gerardo

---

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:28:24 -0700

Gerardo,

 > perspective in some scenarios.

=> None of the above tells me *why* PMIP is needed or why NETLMM cannot
use PMIP. 

 > Therefore, I don't see the two protocols solving the same problem in

=> You just made up a scenario for each one of those protocols and
concluded that they do different things. I think the two protocols can
do the exact same thing. It's very hard to to discuss anything if people
continue to ignore the correct steps of approaching the problem. 
Define it, explain why nothing today can fix it, then we can talk.

Hesham

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:25:52 -0700

So this is my personal opinion why the MIPv6 WG should not take up this 
work.

First off, the MIPv6 architecture is entirely host based, and there are 
certain architectural assumptions that would make it very difficult to move 
it into the network. It is not just a case of making a couple simple 
modifications and using the same bits on the wire. The entire architecture 
of MIPv6 must be rethought, and I don't think that PMIP is the right 
architectural solution for network based mobility management. I think MIPv6 
should be kept a host-based protocol, because, for global mobility 
management, the host must be involved in order that it can accommodate the 
uncertainty in access network deployment circumstances.

In addition, from a service provider standpoint, I think PMIP is the wrong 
solution for the Internet, though it might be the right solution for small 
groups of operators like 3GPP2 who have tight business connections. The 
Internet service provider model is extremely open and flexible, there are 
all sorts of operators of all kinds of sizes, with very loose business 
connections. PMIP defines a new interoperator interface, like BGP and 
Radius. MIP wasn't designed to be an interoperator protocol, and, 
furthermore, it is not clear to me it will be managable given the diversity 
of operator business models on the Internet. I think it may require the kind 
of tight operator business connections that don't exist on the Internet.

Finally, this is the second time within the last two that the WG has been 
requested  by 3GPP2 to standard some protocol that they've developed. The 
first time was the Auth option (RFC 4285). As it turns out, the Auth option 
has some serious security problems that would make it questionable to deploy 
in practice, but IETF has published it now. Given that track record, I'm not 
in favor of taking something developed by 3GPP2 and publishing it, either as 
standards track or informational. The right way for other SDOs to be 
involved with IETF is to develop a technical dialog where the problem and 
requirements are discussed, then work in IETF to design the protocol. I 
brought this up when the Auth option was being discussed, and I think it is 
even more to the point now.

                    jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:32:10 -0700

So this is my response with my NETLMM WG chair hat on.

The NETLMM WG is working on a network-based mobility management protocol 
that we believe is architecturally a good fit with the Internet. If there 
are some problems or requirements that it doesn't solve for 3GPP2, then by 
all means write a draft or an email and describe what those are. The WG is 
having an interim meeting in Chicago next week, you're welcome to attend and 
give input on the design team draft, which is meant to be a starting point 
(but only a starting point, the final design is the responsibility of the WG 
to develop). If you can't make it to Chicago, then by all means write a 
draft or an email describing what the problems are that you see with the 
protocol. The protocol is still under design, and the WG can discuss and 
still accommodate changes, please engage in a dialog with the WG on it.

                    jak

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:20:19 -0700

James,
Can you explain where you got the idea that this is a 3gpp2 request?
Please refrain from making incorrect statements. You may want to read
Stefano's email again for clarification. 

Thanks,
Vidya 

> From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:26 AM
> To: Faccin, Stefano M; [email-masked]
> So this is my personal opinion why the MIPv6 WG should not 
> take up this work.
> 
> First off, the MIPv6 architecture is entirely host based, and 
> there are certain architectural assumptions that would make 
> it very difficult to move it into the network. It is not just 
> a case of making a couple simple modifications and using the 
> same bits on the wire. The entire architecture of MIPv6 must 
> be rethought, and I don't think that PMIP is the right 
> architectural solution for network based mobility management. 
> I think MIPv6 should be kept a host-based protocol, because, 
> for global mobility management, the host must be involved in 
> order that it can accommodate the uncertainty in access 
> network deployment circumstances.
> 
> In addition, from a service provider standpoint, I think PMIP 
> is the wrong solution for the Internet, though it might be 
> the right solution for small groups of operators like 3GPP2 
> who have tight business connections. The Internet service 
> provider model is extremely open and flexible, there are all 
> sorts of operators of all kinds of sizes, with very loose 
> business connections. PMIP defines a new interoperator 
> interface, like BGP and Radius. MIP wasn't designed to be an 
> interoperator protocol, and, furthermore, it is not clear to 
> me it will be managable given the diversity of operator 
> business models on the Internet. I think it may require the 
> kind of tight operator business connections that don't exist 
> on the Internet.
> 
> Finally, this is the second time within the last two that the 
> WG has been requested  by 3GPP2 to standard some protocol 
> that they've developed. The first time was the Auth option 
> (RFC 4285). As it turns out, the Auth option has some serious 
> security problems that would make it questionable to deploy 
> in practice, but IETF has published it now. Given that track 
> record, I'm not in favor of taking something developed by 
> 3GPP2 and publishing it, either as standards track or 
> informational. The right way for other SDOs to be involved 
> with IETF is to develop a technical dialog where the problem 
> and requirements are discussed, then work in IETF to design 
> the protocol. I brought this up when the Auth option was 
> being discussed, and I think it is even more to the point now.
> 
>                     jak 
> 
>

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:32:38 -0700

> Given that track 
> informational. 

I want to bring the statement above to particular attention. Are we now
into the business of criticizing or questioning the intelligence of
other SDOs at the IETF? 

If anything, the issues with the AUTH protocol brings to attention the
carelessness of us here at the IETF - 3gpp2, after all, came to the IETF
to design the protocol. It is our job to look at the requirements and
ensure it is designed right. It is an IETF failure more than anything
else. 

James, I don't really participate in 3gpp2 much, but have to say that I
find such statements extremely offending. We have several engineers here
that attend both SDOs. I wonder what those participants actually have to
say to such things. 

Vidya

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:47:16 -0700

hi Jim,

I would love to discuss global mobility management and local
mobility management over beer. we can discuss to death on
whether MIPv6 is a global mobility management protocol or
something that can be used in _a_ domain. the same goes for
NETLMM and PMIPv6. nothing stopped the proponents of NETLMM
from advocating it for scenarios where the LMA and the GMA
are in different networks even though it was _supposed_ to
be a _local_ mobility management solution.

from what I see, the lines blur in a mobile operator network.

James Kempf wrote:
> certain architectural assumptions that would make it very difficult to 
> move it into the network. It is not just a case of making a couple 
> simple modifications and using the same bits on the wire. The entire 
> architecture of MIPv6 must be rethought, and I don't think that PMIP is 
> the right architectural solution for network based mobility management. 
> I think MIPv6 should be kept a host-based protocol, because, for global 
> mobility management, the host must be involved in order that it can 
> accommodate the uncertainty in access network deployment circumstances.

I do prefer host-based mobility management solutions, but
strongly disagree with the above statements about MIPv6
architecture assumptions or what MIPv6 is supposed to be.

> In addition, from a service provider standpoint, I think PMIP is the 
> wrong solution for the Internet, 

I don't think anybody pitched it as a solution that can be
deployed on the Internet as a general purpose mobility
management protocol. all network-based mobility management
protocol don't work if the HA (LMA) and the AR (MAG) are in
different domains. they also work very poorly if there is
a handoff across heterogeneous access technologies.
host-based mobility is what make sense in a handoff that
involves different access technologies.

> Finally, this is the second time within the last two that the WG has 
> been requested  by 3GPP2 to standard some protocol that they've 
> developed. The first time was the Auth From [email-masked] Fri Sep 22 14:51:17 2006
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:47:16 -0700
From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
To: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6
Cc: [email-masked]

hi Jim,

I would love to discuss global mobility management and local
mobility management over beer. we can discuss to death on
whether MIPv6 is a global mobility management protocol or
something that can be used in _a_ domain. the same goes for
NETLMM and PMIPv6. nothing stopped the proponents of NETLMM
from advocating it for scenarios where the LMA and the GMA
are in different networks even though it was _supposed_ to
be a _local_ mobility management solution.

from what I see, the lines blur in a mobile operator network.

James Kempf wrote:
> certain architectural assumptions that would make it very difficult to 
> move it into the network. It is not just a case of making a couple 
> simple modifications and using the same bits on the wire. The entire 
> architecture of MIPv6 must be rethought, and I don't think that PMIP is 
> the right architectural solution for network based mobility management. 
> I think MIPv6 should be kept a host-based protocol, because, for global 
> mobility management, the host must be involved in order that it can 
> accommodate the uncertainty in access network deployment circumstances.

I do prefer host-based mobility management solutions, but
strongly disagree with the above statements about MIPv6
architecture assumptions or what MIPv6 is supposed to be.

> In addition, from a service provider standpoint, I think PMIP is the 
> wrong solution for the Internet, 

I don't think anybody pitched it as a solution that can be
deployed on the Internet as a general purpose mobility
management protocol. all network-based mobility management
protocol don't work if the HA (LMA) and the AR (MAG) are in
different domains. they also work very poorly if there is
a handoff across heterogeneous access technologies.
host-based mobility is what make sense in a handoff that
involves different access technologies.

> Finally, this is the second time within the last two that the WG has 
> been requested  by 3GPP2 to standard some protocol that they've 
> developed. The first time was the Auth option (RFC 4285). 

bad analogy.

in this case, 3GPP2 is not asking the IETF, they are fine
with developing PMIPv6 _based_ on MIPv6 themselves.

Vijay

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:50:55 -0700 (PDT)

I understand that some SDOs are interested in PMIPv6. Their interest applies for mobility within those link-layers
under their purview, hence this is not being proposed as a global mobility management solution, as some folks have
claimed. 
 
Given that the scenario is one calling for a local mobility management solution with little (if any) host involvement,
I believe this falls within the charter of NETLMM. 
 
It should not be addressed in MIPv6 as it falls under the charter of an existing WG (NETLMM).
 
NETLMM should address this, and given that the design is only under way, now is the right time to engage in that dialog
there. Yes, the DT has produced a draft, but that is only a starting point, and has no more weight than an
individual submission (other than having perhaps better chances of gathering consensus by virtue of representing
the view of at least those folks involved in the DT). I'm not commenting on the relative merits of the DT proposal
versus PMIPv6 for the scenarios in question. Just agreeing with those that have said that now is the right 
time to engage in PMIPv6 dialog there as well.
 
-gabriel

----- Original Message ----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
To: James Kempf <[email-masked]>; "Faccin, Stefano M" <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:20:19 AM
Subject: RE: [Mip6] On a network-mobilioption (RFC 4285). 

bad analogy.

Vijay

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:50:55 -0700 (PDT)

-gabriel

----- Original Message ----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
To: James Kempf <[email-masked]>; "Faccin, Stefano M" <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 11:20:19 AM
Subject: RE: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6

James,

Thanks,
Vidya

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:18:34 +0200

Hi Vidya,

> into the business of criticizing or questioning the intelligence of

I think what James is saying that we're an engineering community.  If we
have a problem and a set of requirements, we should make a honest effort
at providing a good solution to the problem within the constraints of the
requirements, rather than putting our seal on other work.  And this doesn't
mean that we should disregard other work!  It just means that if we are
going to publish something, we should actually work through it, so we are
satisfied that we have a good solution which solves the problem within the
boundaries of our requirements.

And note that the needs (and thus problems and requirements) of the Internet
is not necessarily exactly the same as the needs of a different SDO.  That
doesn't mean that anybody is more or less clever, it's simply a statement
of different needs.

> ensure it is designed right. It is an IETF failure more than anything

Agreed as to our final failure regarding RFC 4285.  However, my understanding
is not that the 3GPP2 asked the IETF to do the design, rather that they
asked the IETF to standardise something they had already settled on.  But
it seems we have different views of the history in this case.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:18:34 +0200

Hi Vidya,

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: "Jean-Michel Combes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:36:39 +0200

> hi Jim,

[snip]

> James Kempf wrote:

[snip]

> involves different access technologies.

I agree with Vijay.

There are needs of strong trust between the MIPv6 proxies and the HA.
Such a strong trust, generally, only exists when the HA and the MIPv6
proxies are in the same administrative domain. And so, IMO, we are in
the NetLMM scenario (i.e. s/MIPv6 proxy/MAG and s/HA/LMA).

Now, if PMIPv6 is needed by SDOs, I think that the right WG is NetLMM
and so people have to ask why PMIPv6 proposal has been rejected.

[snip]

Best regards.

JMC.

---

From: "Jean-Michel Combes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:48:22 +0200

Additionnal comment.

2006/9/25, Jean-Michel Combes <[email-masked]>:
> proxies are in the same administrative domain.

Or an AAA infrastructure may be used to bring security material to set
up this trust. But there is not such a infrastructure in all the
access networks.

Best regards.

JMC.

> And so, IMO, we are in

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:51:42 -0700

> and so people have to ask why PMIPv6 proposal has been rejected.

perhaps we should first figure out if we should do the
work and then later on figure out where to do the work.

Vijay