Subject: [Monami6] 1st draft agenda for a Monami6 BOF

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:36:31 +0900

Dear all,

I've been working on a draft agenda for a Monami6 BOF in Paris.

Please take a look at:
http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf/monami6-ietf63-agenda.html

This is just a draft and reflect my own vision and co-authors of
draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement (I suspect)

I think it's pretty clear we need to discuss issues expressed in the
problem statement and our objectives, but I think we should also speak
about the existing solutions. 

Let me know what you think about this agenda, and feel free to request
the addition of more items (will be accepted based on available time and
importance for such a BOF).

Thanks in advance,
Thierry

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:42:37 +0900

Dear all,

> http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf/monami6-ietf63-agenda.html

The latest submitted version of the multiple CoA draft is 03, and 04 is
under process (but maybe I missed announcement for version 04? but it is
not on the IETF website).
On the above page and on http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf/ you mention 04
as latest submitted version, and 05 as under process.

About the agenda:

> Current multihoming support (multiple interfaces,policy settings) 
> under Linux (MIPL 2.0) and BSD (SHISA)

Maybe I can present some conclusions about current multihoming support
in mobile networks environment? I will have an updated version of
draft-kuntz-nemo-multihoming-test-01.txt for the next IETF.

About the draft charter:

> The expected output of the WG is: * A solution to exchange policies 
> between the mobile node and the home agent (Standard Track)

What about between Mobile Router and MNN? As the charter says it will
also focus on MR operating NEMO BS and as such kind of policies are the
most interesting in multihomed environment, I believe it fits in the
charter.

Regards,

-- 
Romain KUNTZ
[email-masked]

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:46:42 +0900

Hi all

On 2005/06/20, at 16:42, Romain KUNTZ wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thierry Ernst wrote:
>
>> Please take a look at: http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf/monami6- 
>> ietf63-agenda.html
>>
>

I will submit this within 24hrs.
I am ready to submit, but am waiting for confirmation from co-authors.

thanks
ryuji

>> The expected output of the WG is: * A solution to exchange  
>> policies between the mobile node and the home agent (Standard Track)
>>
>

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:46:42 +0900

Hi all

thanks
ryuji

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:54:59 +0900

Hello all

I just submitted the 04 version of the multiple CoA registration draft.
We added Mcoa enabled HA discovery support using DHAAD like NEMO  
extension for NEMO HA discovery.
There are also several minor changes including editorial things.

We appreciate your comments.

thanks
ryuji

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:28:55 -0400

> draft-kuntz-nemo-multihoming-test-01.txt for the next IETF.

Yes, I think it can be interesting. Can we add this to the agenda?

> most interesting in multihomed environment, I believe it fits in the

Sure, but for that we have to be sure that NEMO WG would agree to move 
multihoming support to Monami6. But we can raise this issue during the 
BOF, I also think that communication between MNNs and MRs is very important.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:28:55 -0400

Nicolas

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:31:52 +0900

> > Maybe I can present some conclusions about current multihoming
> > support in mobile networks environment? I will have an updated
> > version of draft-kuntz-nemo-multihoming-test-01.txt for the next
> > IETF.
> 

Yes, it would be useful to know what is the present situation; that will
help to clarify what should be done next, and what will be difficult to
do quickly vs a reasonable amount of time from a standardization point
of view.

> > What about between Mobile Router and MNN? As the charter says it
> > will also focus on MR operating NEMO BS and as such kind of policies
> > are the most interesting in multihomed environment, I believe it
> > fits in the charter.
> 

I think it's a good idea to discuss this point during the BOF (if we get
the BOF). It would also be useful to ask the question to the NEMO WG. I
will take care about this. We have to be more clear in
draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues about what issues are specifc to NEMO
BS, what is not specific to mobility, and what could benefit both MIP6
and NEMO BS.

Thierry

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:26:06 +0800

> BOF, I also think that communication between MNNs and MRs is very important.

Speaking as the co-author of the NEMO WG Multihoming Draft, there has
been no consensus on whether a solution would be added to the NEMO
charter.  So possibilities of transferring work to other WG is open.

Speaking as an individual, if Monami6 becomes a WG, I think it would be
logical to transfer thw work to Monami6.  By then, the NMEO WG should be
busy debating RO solutions ... ;)

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:26:06 +0800

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:10:55 +0200

Hi

In the proposed charter, expected output of the WG - > I think we should
add corresponedent node too to the following sentence.

"A solution to exchange policies between the mobile node and the home
agent (Standard Track)"

Regards

Koojana

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:51:09 -0400

Koojana,

you're right, I'll add this to the list of update.
I'll try to update the charter today, according to the last comments on 
the list.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:51:09 -0400

Koojana,

Nicolas

---

From: Koshiro MITSUYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:42:19 +0900

Hello,

I agree to discuss that point during the BOF.

And, I think policy exchanging between CN and MN is also interesting  
because MN and CN can directly communicate when RO is succeed.

regards,
Koshiro

---

From: Koshiro MITSUYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:42:19 +0900

Hello,

regards,
Koshiro