Subject: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document the WG document

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:57:51 -0500

I welcome this decision and congratulate Phil and James.
 
The DT document is not only introducing non mobility header based 
transport but it is also introducing two new boxes called MAG and LMA.
The transport introduced is not making the protocol IP-version agnostic 
as I explained before.
Regarding the new boxes, it has been taking IP mobility community years 
to digest the earlier boxes of HA, FA, AR, MAP. Now should we spend how 
much more time for the MAG and LMA and multiple MAGs, multiple LMAs and 
so on?
 
I would favor options 1 and 2 and keep Option 4 (especially consider the 
host route based approaches that have been ruled out too quickly at the 
onset).
 
Regards,
 
--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Roberts Phil-APR042 <[email-masked]>
To: Netlmm <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:33:32 AM
Subject: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document the WG 
document

Although there were more folks who voiced support of making the design
team document the working group document than there were against, we
don't feel that we can call a consensus in favor of adopting the design
team document until we better understand the nature of the objections.
So we'd like your help in articulating objections to the DT document, or
making sure that we correctly hear what the objections are.  I believe
the objections fall into three categories, and a couple of folks didn't
say one way or another but voiced a fourth concern:

1.  The WG should use proxy MIP6 as a baseline for doing this work going
further.  It would probably be good to get the reasoning behind this (I
think I've heard a couple of different reasons, but it would be better
for someone who favors this to articulate it).

2.  It's not clear whether we should use the design team document or a
proxy MIP6 approach and it's better to get further clarification (from
other SDOs perhaps?) before adopting one document or another.

3.  The WG should consider reusing some part of MIP6 as the baseline for
the protocol.  I believe that George and Vidya both articulated this
perspective and the idea is that the WG should consider reusing
specifically the mobility header because protocol specs are already
written and extensions or options for the mobility header are already
defined.  But this perspective does NOT say that we should necessarily
reuse MIP6 or adopt proxy MIP6.

4.  (Abstention) Fred articulated a different perspective in his
abstention and MK raised a similar concern I think, and that's that the
work of the WG may be taking a too narrow perspective on the solution
being put forth.

Have I accurately captured what people are saying?

I intend to send a response to Vidya's email of last Friday with some
questions to better clarify the tradeoffs there.  I'll get this going
later today.

Thanks,
Phil

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

---

From: Gregory Woodhouse <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:21:59 -0700

On Oct 13, 2006, at 8:57 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> The transport introduced is not making the protocol IP-version  
> agnostic as I explained before.
> Regarding the new boxes, it has been taking IP mobility community  
> years to digest the earlier boxes of HA, FA, AR, MAP. Now should we  
> spend how much more time for the MAG and LMA and multiple MAGs,  
> multiple LMAs and so on?
> I would favor options 1 and 2 and keep Option 4 (especially  
> consider the host route based approaches that have been ruled out  
> too quickly at the onset).
> Regards,
> --behcet

I know I'm coming to this rather late in the game, but in seems to me  
that the main argument for using IPv6 is the need to support multiple  
IP addresses for a single network interface. a secondary issue here  
is that IPv4 addresses are a somewhat more precious commodity, and  
even if a proxy ARP scheme was allowed to support multiple IPv4  
addresses for a single network adapter, this might not be desirable.  
Supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 would complicate the message formats  
(section 5), and I would consider it rather undesirable to resort to  
an approach such as using options for IPv6 addresses, as it relegates  
IPv6 to a secondary status. The biggest issue I see with NOT  
supporting IPv4 is routability of traffic to hosts that may be well  
outside the access network.

Gregory Woodhouse
[email-masked]

"Life can only be understood going backwards, but it must be lived  
going forwards."
--Søren Kierkegaard

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:11:06 +0200

Hi,

> outside the access network.

When referring to IPv6 and IPv4 in this context, we should be aware of
the fact that the IP version may matter in two clearly separate contexts:

* The Mobile Node address, client traffic, and AR interfaces towards
  the MN could be IPv4, IPv6, or mixed.

  The current DT document only fully considers IPv6 MN addresses, but
  I believe that extension to handle IPv4 addresses and traffic should
  be trivial and the specification of that should be done soon.

* The native IP version of the access network (over which the local
  mobility protocol runs) could be IPv6, IPv4, or mixed.

  The current DT protocol works with all of these: IPv6, IPv4, and mixed.

	Henrik

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:31:37 -0700

Actually, I the DT protocol supports IPv4 addresses on the host. The 
protocol as it currently stands would require additional work to run over 
IPv4 transport between the LMA and MAG. In particular, the rather gnarly 
discussions about how to handle various placement of NATs.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregory Woodhouse" <[email-masked]>
To: "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document the 
WGdocument

Gregory Woodhouse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:42:06 -0700

Behcet,

I'm somewhat puzzled by your response. Phil's message is intended to start a 
discussion about why the people who came out against the DT draft did so, so 
we can understand their technical objections and work towards addressing 
them. We did not intend to indicate that we had made a decision. The vote 
was about 15 to 6 for the draft, so if we were going based on the number of 
people who like the draft, we could declare rough concensus. However, the 
people with technical objections may have spotted something the DT didn't, 
so we think it is prudent to engage in a conversation.

I gather from your note that your primary objection is to introducing new 
terminology. One of the reasons to introduce new terminology is because the 
architecture is new. LMA and MAG indicate functional architectural entites. 
It seems you feel these are the same as the entites in Mobile IP. However, 
if you examine the DT draft closely, you'll see that their functions are in 
some cases quite different. In other cases, the names used in the MIP 
community - such as AR - are actually network reference architecural entites 
that can contain multiple functional entities. An AR can, for example, 
contain a NAS. It could also contain a MAG. And for MAP, we originally 
called the LMA a MAP, but were requested by the HMIP folks to change the 
name to avoid confusion. So it seems some MIP folks prefer new names. And it 
makes sense from a technical standpoint too, since the LMA is functionally 
different in important ways.

       jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: [netlmm] results of consensus call to make DT document the 
WGdocument

> The transport introduced is not making the protocol IP-version agnostic as 
> I explained before.
> Regarding the new boxes, it has been taking IP mobility community years to 
> digest the earlier boxes of HA, FA, AR, MAP. Now should we spend how much 
> more time for the MAG and LMA and multiple MAGs, multiple LMAs and so on?
>