Subject: [netlmm] #81: Change "Interoperable IP protocols" to "Mobile IP based protocols"

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:22:03 -0000

#81: Change "Interoperable IP protocols" to "Mobile IP based protocols"
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                       |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  trivial                      |   Milestone:  milestone2              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  2.0                     
 Keywords:  PS draft                     |  
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Fred Templin writes:

 11) Section 4.0, first paragraph. Change: "1) Interoperable IP
 level protocols" to: "1) Mobile-IP based protocols".

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/81>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>

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

---

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:26:26 -0000

#81: Change "Interoperable IP protocols" to "Mobile IP based protocols"
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  closed                  
  Priority:  trivial                      |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  2.0                     
Resolution:  wontfix                      |    Keywords:  PS draft                
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * resolution:  => wontfix
  * status:  new => closed

Comment:

 It has been argued on the list that HMIP and FMIP could be used in non
 Mobile IP hosts. The implementation effort would be greater since
 implementing these protocols would require implementing some fraction of
 what a Mobile IP implementation provides. Also, it is questionable
 whether, for example, a network administrator who uses Mobike for mobility
 management would want to deploy, for example, HMIP, since it would mean
 adding a whole new set of O&M tasks that are not necessary with Mobike.
 But the theoretical possibility is there.

 Recommentation is not to change this text.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:23:41 -0700

>  But the theoretical possibility is there.

this makes no sense. we have discussed this in the past
and agreed that an LMM protocol like HMIP can be run
independent of protocols like Mobile IP or MOBIKE. I am
disappointed to see this appear again.

Vijay

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:29:36 -0700

Vijay,

Did you read through the entire message? The recommendation was not to 
change the current text because the possibility of using HMIP with Mobike is 
there, and the current text acknowledges that.

I take your comment to be "in violent agreement" with the recommendation, 
or?

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Using HMIP with MOBIKE (was Re: [netlmm] #81: Change 
"InteroperableIP protocols" to "Mobile IP based protocols")

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:38:05 -0700

James Kempf wrote:
> Vijay,
> 
> Did you read through the entire message? 

yes.

> The recommendation was not to 
> change the current text because the possibility of using HMIP with 
> Mobike is there, and the current text acknowledges that.

yes, thanks.

> I take your comment to be "in violent agreement" with the 
> recommendation, or?

I am in "violent disagreement" with the following.

>  Also, it is questionable

on top of that, you called it a "theoretical possibility".

Vijay

> 
>            jak
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vijay Devarapalli" 
> <[email-masked]>

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:48:00 -0700

Ok, I'll register your complaint. But I don't believe there is anything 
actionable in it.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: Using HMIP with MOBIKE (was Re: [netlmm] #81: Change 

>> The recommendation was not to change the current text because the 
>> possibility of using HMIP with Mobike is there, and the current text 
>> acknowledges that.
>
> yes, thanks.
>

---

From: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:50:05 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Vijay disagrees with the designation of the possibiity of deploying HMIP
 with Mobike, for example, as theoretical. He believes it is a real and
 attractive deployment possibility.

 This does not affect the recommended action, however. The current text
 acknowledges this possibility.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:51:14 -0700

I mean actionable with respect to the document. I noted your comment in the 
Trac log.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
To: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Using HMIP with MOBIKE (was Re: [netlmm] #81: 
Change"InteroperableIP protocols" to "Mobile IP based protocols")

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:18:54 -0700

Proposed resolution is fine; move to close.

Fred
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: netlmm [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 1:26 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] #81: Change "Interoperable IP protocols" to
"Mobile IPbased protocols"

#81: Change "Interoperable IP protocols" to "Mobile IP based protocols"
------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
----
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:
[email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  closed

------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
----
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * resolution:  => wontfix
  * status:  new => closed

Comment:

 It has been argued on the list that HMIP and FMIP could be used in non
 Mobile IP hosts. The implementation effort would be greater since
 implementing these protocols would require implementing some fraction
of
 what a Mobile IP implementation provides. Also, it is questionable
 whether, for example, a network administrator who uses Mobike for
mobility
 management would want to deploy, for example, HMIP, since it would mean
 adding a whole new set of O&M tasks that are not necessary with Mobike.
 But the theoretical possibility is there.

---

From: Tom Wan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:55:22 +0800

Hi, all:
      How do you think about netlmm and network mobility?

problem:
Currently, NEMO is a extension of mip6 protocol, which is designed as a 
global mobility protocol.
But, as we know, the route optimization in NEMO is a problem, and it may be 
hard to solve this problem.
To solve this problem based on mip6 protocol, the mip6 protocol and current 
routing protocol may be modified
a lot.
netlmm solution:
If we consider NEMO in the netlmm basic protocol, it may be easier. How do 
you think this topic?

BR
Tom
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>; "Vijay Devarapalli" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: Using HMIP with MOBIKE (was Re: [netlmm] 
#81:Change"InteroperableIP protocols" to "Mobile IP based protocols")

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:58:46 +0200

Tom Wan wrote:
> Hi, all: How do you think about netlmm and network mobility?
> 
> problem: Currently, NEMO is a extension of mip6 protocol, which is 
> designed as a global mobility protocol. But, as we know, the route 
> optimization in NEMO is a problem, and it may be hard to solve this 
> problem. To solve this problem based on mip6 protocol, the mip6 
> protocol and current routing protocol may be modified a lot. netlmm 
> solution: If we consider NEMO in the netlmm basic protocol, it may be
>  easier. How do you think this topic?

Not sure how to approach this...

NEMOv6 offers permanent home addresses for MR and LFNs, wherever the MR
moves across the entire Internet.  Netlmm _may_ offer permanent
addresses to MR and LFNs  but only valid within the netlmm domain.  Once
out of the netlmm domain these addresses are no longer valid, so the
generic NEMOv6 Route Optimization problem couldn't be solved by netlmm.

One may imagine a non-tunnel route update solution working over the
world-wide Internet but not sure the core routers would support so many
dynamic updates.  A net"g"mm (g for global) bar BoF was discussed last
IETF.  Also check the NEMO Working Group discussions and potential
re-chartering around the topic of global route updates.

For netlmm scope, it would be good if it updated routes (or tunnel
endpoints, or MPLS labels) within the netlmm domain containing prefixes
  and not only 128bit addresses, and if it used DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
to allocate such prefixes to the visiting Mobile Routers.  I think
currently the netlmm design only considers 128bit-length addresses, not
prefixes such as 64bit-length prefixes.  And I think currently netlmm
considers address allocation only as stateless (not DHCP).  The MN-AR
interface is a WG item while the DHCP-netlmm document is not.

But this may be future work, and even so it can not solve the NEMO RO
problem you mentioned earlier.

Alex