Subject: RE: [netlmm] Dual Stack Moving Internet (DSMI)

From: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 09:03:28 -0700

Hi Henrik and Pekka.

I agree with Henrik and feel that supporting IPv4 user traffic should be
easily accomodated with extensions to NetLMM protocol.  Though
definitely having some detail analysis would be ideal.

Kent

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 5:46 AM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Mark
Townsley (townsley)
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Dual Stack Moving Internet (DSMI)

Hi Pekka,

On 2006-09-08 13:03 Pekka Savola said the following:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> on 2006-09-08 11:53 Sangjin Jeong said the following:
>>> As you already know, NETLMM WG works on IPv6 solution and it is 
>>> likely to develop IPv4 solution later. However, when mobile nodes 
>>> roam over IPv6 NETLMM and IPv4 NETLMM domains, maintaining IP 
>>> connectivity during handover seems not to be trivial. I think that 
>>> maintaining
>>> IPv6 connectivity in IPv4 NETLMM domains or IPv4 connectivity in 
>>> IPv6 NETLMM domains does not look straightforward and requires more 
>>> consideration.
>> Well, then we clearly disagree on this.  Since the user traffic is 
>> tunnelled in the NetLMM domain, the underlying infrastructure doesn't

>> matter to the nature of the user traffic. [...]
> 
> Maybe there are different considerations, such as:
> 
>   - If a NETLMM network is v6-only, how can the infrastructure send 
> tunneled packets to a v4-only NETLMM network as they have no common IP

> protocol version?  (This is a more general IPv6 transition problem)

We have to be precise here, and distinguish between the IP version of
the underlying infrastructure, and the IP version of the user traffic.

I'm saying that the IP version of the underlying infrastructure doesn't
matter - it can carry both IPv4 and IPv6 in the tunnels, as long as we
specify how.

Of course, if a MN is trying to reach a server with an IPv6 address if
the MN only has an IPv4 address, or vice versa, then we don't have an
NetLMM problem, but the MN has a general IPv6 transition problem, which
is maybe what you're saying above.  But this shouldn't be solved by
NetLMM - NetLMM should only ensure two things, if we want to fully
support deployment on IPv4 infrastructure:

  * Be deployable on both IPv4 and IPv6 infrastructure
  * Be able to carry both IPv4 and IPv6 user traffic

>   - Are NETLMM domains (/implementations) required to support all the 
> possible user data traffic protocols?  IPv4 and IPv6, someone is bound

> to come up with a case for IPX, AppleTalk, etc. as well -- you name 
> it.  If I recall correctly, each of these may require a slightly 
> different MN-AR interface (at the very least). Will such support 
> always exist?  What if it doesn't, is it out of scope?

I would expect it to eventually be specified to support IPv4 and IPv6.

If people want something else, they can propose extensions, or define
vendor-specific extensions to handle this.  I don't see it as a primary
IETF concern.

>> No, till someone does a really thorough analysis and shows there are 
>> hard problems to be solved, I maintain that this is trivial.  Needs 
>> specification, but no hard problems.
> 
> I'm not sure if this the right time to look at this because there 
> isn't even a WG draft on NETLMM protocol yet, so everything is subject

> to change (for worse or better).
> 
> On the other hand, I agree that the problem being solved needs to be 
> clearer.  To me, the most important focus at first should be 
> identifying whether there are issues in federating v6 NETLMM domains.

Agreed.  My personal belief is that this will be trivial (ooh, I'm
really repeating myself here) but an analysis is better than beliefs.

	Henrik

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

---

From: "carl williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:07:02 -0700

Hi Pekka and Henrik

  Supporting NETLMM to handle IPv4 traffic is extensions to the NETLMM
protocol and clearly a milestone for a re-charter.  And my opinion a BOF is
not needed simply for this.  (Maybe an informal bar-bof for people to
discuss the technical issues).

  However, I respectively disagree with the notion that the INT AD should
somehow freeze any new working groups in a particular area from being formed
or any new BOFs from being initiated.  I never heard of any precedent before
for doing this.

  Having a BOF doesn't mean that a new working group will be formed.  I have
seen a BOF in the transport area in which the AD decided to split the work
proposed into 2 existing working groups.  Also, BOFs are a method for
presenting new ideas for deployment requirements.  We should not freeze new
ideas. BOFs doesn't mean automatic working group from being formed. 

  The IESG is in a state of being conservative already in forming new
working groups.  So I don't think we need to have some blind and blanket
freeze on an area that many providers and others are in mid-stage in their
deployment.

  Again, I agree that NETLMM working group should handle this current topic
of IPv4 co-existence but let's be prudent in our decision about forming
other valid BOFs down the road.

  Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Leung (kleung) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 9:03 AM
To: Henrik Levkowetz; Pekka Savola
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Mark Townsley (townsley)
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Dual Stack Moving Internet (DSMI)

Hi Henrik and Pekka.

Kent

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 5:46 AM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];

Hi Pekka,

	Henrik