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

From: "Damic, Damjan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:16:56 +0200

Hello,

Proxy MIP4 is a known topic for some time now, already widespread and
applied elsewhere for its usability and deployment benefits.
Considering all the fuss, Proxy MIP6 looks to be heading in the same
direction.

In addition to all the arguments neatly presented by Stefano, maybe to
point out the activities in the MIP4/MIP6 WGs for comparison:
MIP4 WG recently adopted the dual-stack support (the last charter item,
post-Montreal update) to solve IPv6 MM in MIP4 networks.
Accordingly, the newly suggested MIP6 charter defines work on session
continuity through the DS support.

For some reason, in both cases the opposing concepts of network-based MM
for IPv6 hosts have been omitted.
>From the short-term deployment perspective the concepts are at least
equally worth as is the host-based solution, whereas NetLMM is not
(IMHO).
Therefore the initiative to deal with PMIP6 in the new MIP6 charter
seems somehow justified.

Regards,
Damjan

>
>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: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:12:03 -0700

I'm only responding to specific errors here and not to the general topic
started by Stefano. 

 > Considering all the fuss, Proxy MIP6 looks to be heading in the same

=> That's sad.

 > continuity through the DS support.

=> FWIW the DS work was in the charter before this last spin. In fact
this work is a couple of years old and the WG draft is over a year old. 

 > for IPv6 hosts have been omitted.

=> I find it amusing that you start the sentence with "For some reason",
as if to say PMIP6 was a natural next step for MIP. There is a reason
why MIP was designed the way it was with MN involvement. Network
mobility was allocated a different WG, NETLMM. I'm not sure why they
didn't do PMIP, but that might be a question that they can help you
with. Also PMIPv4 is not a standard protocol or documented anywhere in
IETF. 

 > equally worth as is the host-based solution, whereas NetLMM is not

=> The IETF is not necessarily the best place for "short-term"
deployments IMO. Standards take a long time to develop here and they are
expected to last. You seem to think that PMIP is not a Netlmm thing. Of
course PMIP is a network-based mobility protocol, which is what netlmm
does, you just want to do it differently. 

Hesham

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:22:05 -0700 (PDT)

Stefano's mail suggests there is strong SDO support for PMIPv6. That is something IETF cares. SDO needs are considered important and IETF tries to fullfill the needs, IMO.
 
That said, MIPv6 is not like MIPv4, so I wonder how the route optimization will work in PMIPv6?
 
--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
To: "Damic, Damjan" <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:12:03 AM
Subject: RE: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6

=> That's sad.

Hesham

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:25:36 +0200

> applied elsewhere for its usability and deployment benefits.

Where exactly?

Alex

---

From: "Damic, Damjan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:38:28 +0200

Hello,

To clear up the missunderstandings..

> > Considering all the fuss, Proxy MIP6 looks to be heading in the same

Only an opinion, with no intentions for false advertisement.
The interest for the PMIP6 exists, whether shown in WiMax Forum or
elsewhere.
Stefano listed some obvious practical and technical advantages, and I
guess the dispute over other reasons is not appropriate here.

>this work is a couple of years old and the WG draft is over a 

Have used the DS as an example of sustained work over a specific MM
aspect.
Another option is at least worth considering, furthermore because it
requires only the minimal protocol extensions.

>with. Also PMIPv4 is not a standard protocol or documented anywhere in

Simply meant the issue was not addressed. And I do agree with the other
things you said.
The PMIPv4 is not an IETF standard, but this probably will not stop
WiMax guys from deploying it.

>does, you just want to do it differently. 

Very much true. My only question (being rather fresh to IETF and still
unfamiliar with all the procedures) would be, how soon in realistic
terms the operational NetLMM can  be expected?

Regards,
Damjan

---

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:17:33 -0700

> requires only the minimal protocol extensions.

=> In order to consider new work you need to justify it technically.
Simply saying that 
"the market" wants it is not something we can judge or verify. 
We've already gone through this with netlmm and a WG came out of it (no
comment on that process). So, if you want to develop a netlmm protocol
like PMIP, why don't you go to the right WG? Propose it in netlmm and
show that it's better than what they're doing. 

We don't need two netlmm protocols in IETF developed simultaneously. We
didn't even need one ...sigh.

 > WiMax guys from deploying it.

=> That's fine, good luck to them and we don't need to or have to
approve it, right?
GTP was standardised and deployed by 3GPP without and IETF involvement.

 > terms the operational NetLMM can  be expected?

=> I wish I could answer that but I have no idea. you can start by
asking the netlmm list though.

Hesham