Subject: [Monami6] updated charter

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:28:35 -0400

Folks,

Here is an updated proposed agenda for the potantial Monami6 BOF at the 
next IETF based on the last discussionon the mailing list. Please feel 
free to comment it.

The following items should be addressed during the BOF:

    * Opening: Agenda Bashing
    * Introduction: Objectives of the BOF
    * Motivations
            _draft-ernst-generic-goals-and-benefits_
            Goals and Benefits of Multihoming
            [-version -01 February 05]
            <http://www.nautilus6.org/doc/drafts/draft-ernst-generic-goals-and-benefits-01.txt>

    * Problem Statement for MIPv6
            _draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement_
            Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6
            [version -04 June 05]
            <http://www.nautilus6.org/doc/drafts/draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-04.txt>
            [HTML]
            <http://www.nautilus6.org/doc/drafts/draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-04.html>
            [current version -05 (under progress)]
            <http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf/draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-05current.txt>

    * Current multihoming support (multiple interfaces,policy settings)
      under Linux (MIPL 2.0) and BSD (SHISA)
          o draft-kuntz-nemo-multihoming
    * Solutions that should be standardized
          o _draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa_
            Multiple Care-of Address Registration
            [version -04 June 2005]
            <http://www.nautilus6.org/doc/drafts/draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-04.txt>
          o Mechanism for HoA/CoA selection
          o HoA used as CoA
          o Solution to exchange policies between MNs and HoA / CNs
    * Other solutions that should be considered
          o Investigate other protocols such as SCTP, SIP?
    * Overview Proposed Charter
      <http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf/monami6-charter.html>
          o MIPv4 support
                + include MIPv4 related issues in the charter? - or -
                + Work first on MIPv6 and then eventually backport
                  solutions to MIPv4
          o NEMO support
                + Multihoming support could be moved from NEMO WG to Monami6
                + NEMO specific topics
                      # Protocol / policies exchange between MNNs and MRs
                      # Protocol / policies exchange between MNNs and CNs
                      # MRs selection

Nicolas

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

---

From: Nicolas Chevrollier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:37:28 -0400

Nicolas,

See comment inline.

Nicolas Montavont wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Here is an updated proposed agenda for the potantial Monami6 BOF at 
> the next IETF based on the last discussionon the mailing list. Please 
> feel free to comment it.
>

I am not sure to understand this item, shouldn't it be proprietary 
solutions? where is the need for standardization?

Nicolas

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:18:49 +0800

Hello Nicolas ... (both ;))

> solutions? where is the need for standardization?

That depends ... there are various aspects of HoA/CoA selection:
(a) influencing the HoA/CoA selection from interaction between MN and
access network 
(b) MN influencing the selection of HoA/CoA at the HA/Cn (but this may
be closely related, or similar, to the policies exchange 2 bullets
below)
(c) HA/CN influencing the selection of HoA/CoA at the MN (again, may be
closely related, or similar, to the policies exchange 2 bullets below)
(d) MN selecting HoA/CoA based on information it has gotten
(e) HA/CN selecting HoA/CoA based on information it has gotten

Only (d) and (e) may be proprietary ...

> >          o Investigate other protocols such as SCTP, SIP?

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:18:49 +0800

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Koshiro MITSUYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:58:40 +0900

Hello,

>          o Solution to exchange policies between MNs and HoA / CNs

Maybe, it's HA.

>                      # Protocol / policies exchange between MNNs  

What's about # Protocol / policies exchange with HA?
When we want to control traffics to MR, we have to put policies on HA  
too.

regards,
Koshiro

---

From: Koshiro MITSUYA <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:58:40 +0900

Hello,

Maybe, it's HA.

regards,
Koshiro

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:01:30 -0400

Hi,

>Only (d) and (e) may be proprietary ...
Yes I think you are right. We certainly don't want to propose 
proprietary solution, but rather propose something like RFC3484, i.e. 
basic rules to select the most adequat address to use. It can be a 
proposed HoA/CoA selection based on mobility criteria.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:01:30 -0400

Hi,

Nicolas