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

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:08:49 +0900

Hi folks,

I and some of related people are trying to propose a new BoF,
(Dual Stack Moving Internet (DSMI))at upcoming IETF-67 and the
discussion with ADs is in progress (it is not fixed yet).

http://icl.kut.ac.kr/dsmi

Here's a mailing list for the issue discussion :

   General Discussion: [email-masked]
   To Subscribe: http://icl.kut.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/dsmi

The objective of this BoF is to develop a mobility management
protocol that supports dual stack mobile node's roaming over
IPv6 and IPv4 NETLMM domains with single IP address and does
not require additional host-side software update.

At this time, there is a related draft.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jeong-netlmm-dual-stack-moving-ps-00.txt

Please make comments on this stuff and don't hesitate to ask further 
question.

Hopefully, I will request to schedule this BoF, if we identify what a
this BoF would like to do and discussion is mature before cutoff
(Sept. 25).

Regards,
Myung-Ki,
ETRI

p.s. Apologies for possible cross-postings.

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:30:54 +0200

Hi,

(Removing v6ops and mip6 from the Cc: list)

> not require additional host-side software update.

I don't understand the purpose with a BOF on something that would
naturally be discussed as part of a re-chartering of NETLMM.

Are you proposing a new working group do work in parallel with NETLMM
on the same protocol?  Are you proposing to discuss NETLMM
re-chartering before re-chartering is considered by the ADs and Chairs?
Or something else?

Normally I would expect discussions regarding aspects of the NetLMM
protocol to be discussed on the NETLMM WG list, not on a separate
BOF list -- in my mind, that's for cases where there's no WG list
already active...

> Please make comments on this stuff and don't hesitate to ask further 

Why would we make comments on a draft which seems clearly NETLMM-related
on another list than the NETLMM list?  Better do that on the existing
list, unless/until it is ruled off-topic, no?

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:09:28 +0900

Hi,

> BOF list -- in my mind, that's for cases where there's no WG list

We already thought NETLMM re-chartering possibility, but we agreed that
the problem spaces (e.g., single domain vs. IPv4-IPv6 federated domain)
of the two are much different, and the expected solutions are mutually 
independent; IMHO, (IPv4-IPv6) domain roaming solution don't have to
care about the NETLMM solution.

Also, I think the IPv4-IPv6 federated domain roaming is an another big
problem, so NetLMM WG can't take care of the issues with satisfactory 
progress.

Anyway, we'd like to know how many folks are interested in this issue 
first, and then, we can figure out where is the best place to 
efficiently pursue this.

Thanks,
Myung-Ki,

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:33:14 +0200

Hi Myung-Ki,

> care about the NETLMM solution.

Oh.  Then I guess that I disagree severely; not only has IPv4 infrastructure
support been held in mind during the DT work, but it is mentioned in the
current charter as a possible topic for rechartering.  If this is your reason
for an additional mailing list and a BOF, I'd suggest you reconsider those
ideas.

> problem, so NetLMM WG can't take care of the issues with satisfactory 

Funny.  I think it's probably going to be rather trivial, from an NetLMM
perspective.  I really can't see any big hurdles or problems doing this,
it really looks straightforward.

> first, and then, we can figure out where is the best place to 

The interest exists, I'm sure.  I'd just prefer to follow the current
charter; complete the solution which runs on IPv6 cleanly, and then do
the IPv4 work after re-chartering.

	Henrik

---

From: "Sangjin Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:53:56 +0900

Hello Henrik,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Dual Stack Moving Internet (DSMI)

> it really looks straightforward.

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.

Regards,
- Sangjin

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:50:25 +0200

Hi Sangjin,

> Hello Henrik,
...

> NETLMM domains does not look straightforward and requires more 

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.  In the current NetLMM Design Team draft we have
also already covered a few places where IPv4 specific options will be needed,
such as the NetLMM Address Option which already has an option subtype for
IPv4 addresses.

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.

	Henrik

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:03:37 +0300 (EEST)

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> 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)

  - 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?

> problems to be solved, I maintain that this is trivial.  Needs specification,

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.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:45:56 +0200

Hi Pekka,

> 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

> 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.

> 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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:56:27 -0700

Myung-Ki,

The discussion on your proposal seems to have gotten a bit of hand, so I 
won't say much more.

Basically, having a BOF to extend NETLMM before the actual protocol is 
complete seems like it might not be such a good idea. That doesn't mean that 
the extensions you have proposed should not be considered, its just that the 
timing is a bit awkward.

I'd consul patience right now until the WG has completed the current 
charter. We expect to have the protocol complete and be ready for 
rechartering early 2007, at that time we can add your proposal to the list 
of items to consider. In the meantime, there's nothing preventing you from 
continuing to work on your idea with other interested folks, have an 
informal bar BOF, and refine it, so that, when the time comes, you have the 
strongest possible case to present to the WG for accepting it into the 
charter.

            jak

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 02:41:47 +0200

Hi Youn-Hee,

on 2006-09-08 16:51 Youn-Hee Han said the following:
> Hi Henrik,
> 
> According to the WG description text introduced by
> http://icl.kut.ac.kr/dsmi/,
> the main problem is relevant to "IP session continuity" across IP-level
> heterogeneous
> NETLMM domains. Moreover, any host-side software change is not allowed.
> So, I think you are deviate from the point.

Thank you for that.

Nevertheless, it seems this is already very well covered by the current
work plus the foreseen re-chartering items.

> Rather, my concern is that the proposed scope crosses into the scope of
> global
> mobility management. But, as we could see at GOMM BoF, it is even very hard
> to decide the definition of 'Global Mobility Management'.

Right.  Fortunately, we don't have any need to go there to handle dual stack
NetLMM on IPv4, IPv6, or mixed infrastructure.

> Therefore, IMHO, it is better to narrow down the goal and focus only to
> IPv4-IPv6 NETLMM domain roaming.

You're describing something here as a problem which isn't one, really.

And it's not clear if you're talking about IPv4 and IPv6 NetLMM
deployment infrastructure, or if you're talking about user traffic.

Please be more specific.

	Henrik

> - Youn-Hee Han
> 
> 
> 2006/9/8, Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>>:
> 
>     Hi Pekka,
> 
>     dsmi mailing list
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     http://icl.kut.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/dsmi
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:31:37 +0900

Hi James,

I thought the NetLMM WG had gone further to achieve it's basic aims
(network-based *localized* mobility protocol).

This issue with IPv4-IPv6 roaming in federated NetLMM domains might
be kind of issues on handover between localized mobility management
domains or one of goals for network-based *global* moblity protocols
which should be considered some day.

As Pekka pointed out, this problem can be also solved by IPv6 transition
mechanisms, but we'd prefer *network-based* solutions without any host- 
side signaling or upgrade, rather than using transition mechanisms.
If NetLMM can support this (*seamless*), then there is of benefit to
deployment.

This problem is a kind of deployment one, not an original
problem of NetLMM, as you already know.
I believe this is not trivial.

Of course, there isn't even a WG draft on NETLMM protocol yet, and if
everything is subject to change, there will be a change to look at it.

If the NetLMM WG can cover all the issue above, it will seem to be
fine with me, but I am hoping we can continue to discuss about it
and go further in NetLMM WG or any other place.

Thanks,
Myung-Ki,

James Kempf wrote:
> complete seems like it might not be such a good idea. That doesn't mean 
> that the extensions you have proposed should not be considered, its just 
> that the timing is a bit awkward.
> 
> rechartering early 2007, at that time we can add your proposal to the 
> list of items to consider. In the meantime, there's nothing preventing 
> you from continuing to work on your idea with other interested folks, 
> have an informal bar BOF, and refine it, so that, when the time comes, 
> you have the strongest possible case to present to the WG for accepting 
> it into the charter.
> 
>            jak