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

From: "Hirschman, Brent B [CTO]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:44:53 -0500

I would like to support the addition of the PMIP work item to the MIP6 WG charter.  The extensions required are minimal.  With the addition of VoIP services to the packet data network, PMIP provides an efficient method of enabling mobility to users on mobile stations without forcing MIP onto the MS.  Network mobility is a value added capability that Sprint wants to continue to provide in a packet data environment.  Use of PMIP is simple, based on existing RFCs and can be shared across multiple access technologies, since it is located in the network.

Brent Hirschman
Technology Development Strategist III
Global Technology Standards
KSOPHD0504-5D178
6220 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, KS 66251
Voice 913-794-4271  FAX 913-794-0420
PCS 913-593-6221
[email-masked]
IMPORTANT: This message (including any attachments) may contain material, non-public information or proprietary information and is for the intended recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient, you should notify the sender and delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or use of this information is strictly prohibited and may subject you to legal liability. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Faccin, Stefano M [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:59 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Mip6] On a network-mobility solution based on Mobile IPv6

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

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:24:12 +0200

Hi Brent,

Hirschman, Brent B [CTO] wrote:
> I would like to support the addition of the PMIP work item to the 
> MIP6 WG charter.  The extensions required are minimal.

Please allow me to be blunt, to this remark (not to the person).

PMIP concepts are important departures from the classical MIP concept
where the MN is in charge, and end2end.

PMIP has never been published as an I-D.

There is no PMIP problem statement, no requirements, no security threats.

PMIP as known via other SDOs are related in certain ways to IPR, an
element adding to the complexity of getting it quickly through IETF.

Most recent Charter proposal already has items that may take much time:
maintain 3775/6, bootstrapping, DS, HA reliability and HA switch,
without talking about the other informational items.

This is why I don't think PMIP work can happen here in a minimal way,
and thus I don't support adding it to the MIP6 Charter, not for the next
8 months at least.

Alex

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:58:57 -0700

Alex,

most of the existing work done for MIPv6 can be
re-used for PMIPv6. you are exaggerating a bit
here.

Vijay

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> I would like to support the addition of the PMIP work item to the MIP6 
>> WG charter.  The extensions required are minimal.
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:54:41 +0200

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Alex,
> 
> most of the existing work done for MIPv6 can be re-used for PMIPv6.
> you are exaggerating a bit here.

Sorry for exagerrating appearance to you.

The threat model is completely different when the MN is not involved, to
a point one wonders why using mip at all, and no need of ro and so on.

Alex

>> PMIP concepts are important departures from the classical MIP
>> concept where the MN is in charge, and end2end.
>> 
>> Most recent Charter proposal already has items that may take much
>> time: maintain 3775/6, bootstrapping, DS, HA reliability and HA
>> switch, without talking about the other informational items.
>> 
>> This is why I don't think PMIP work can happen here in a minimal
>> way, and thus I don't support adding it to the MIP6 Charter, not
>> for the next 8 months at least.
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Mip6 mailing list 
>> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
> 
>