Subject: Re: [netlmm] PMIPv6 Next Steps

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 13:11:16 -0700 (PDT)

Hello all,
  Here are my views on these great issues:

-IPv4 support: don't have a strong opinion but keeping in the base document sounds logical to me.

- the PMIP6-MIP6 interactions, I do not see a strong need for this but an informational document would do.

-Regarding the anchoring approach, the need for such an approach is specific, and architectural. Maybe it is better done where it is needed, i.e. WiMAX.

-not supporting any shared link behavior is good.

I was expecting more in the list of extensions for which the drafts already exit and some even presented:
-NEMO support,
-RO support,
-handover and context transfer extension
-others.

Should these extensions be considered in other WGs?

Thx.

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2007 4:21:54 PM
Subject: [netlmm] PMIPv6 Next Steps

All,
In the interest of meeting our goals in a timely manner, I propose that
the base protocol document be in accordance with our charter and other
things be written up separately. I have discussed this with our AD and
we are in agreement that this would allow us to make faster and better
progress. Some of this can proceed parallely and we can ensure timely
completion of those as well. This would also allow better work
distribution to allow parallel operation. 

Specifically, here are the next steps. 

Decided actions: 
----------------
* The protocol document will progress with the base PMIPv6 specification
(draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-00)

* IPv4 support to be specified in a companion document, which will
progress in parallel. We will add a separate goal to the charter to
ensure this gets done. Consensus for doing the IPv4 work has already
been established in the WG. 

* A discussion of the PMIP6-MIP6 interactions in Prague indicated
several points that need to be documented and some issues that need to
be flushed out. A separate document is needed to describe the details
clearly. The base document can proceed with an informative reference to
this document. We do need to make sure we are cognizant of the
interactions in the PMIP6 design. So, the hope is that we can flush out
the details more or less in parallel as well. 

To-be-decided based on WG consensus:
------------------------------------

* If there is WG consensus to standardize the anchoring approach, we
will work on a separate document that describes that. I will soon send
out an email asking for WG opinion on this. 

To-be-decided based on further investigation and interest:
----------------------------------------------------------

* In Prague, we decided that the base document will not support any
shared link behavior, including last-hop shared links for link-local
addresses, due to lingering questions on DNAv6 dependency and the
potential need for domain-wide uniqueness for link-local addresses. This
topic can continue to be flushed out by the WG and we will revisit it
when we have a better idea on how to add this support to the protocol. 

Thanks,
Vidya

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

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

---

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:54:37 -0400

Hi, Bechet, 
 
Please find inline. 
 
Regards,
Ajoy 

________________________________

From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 3:11 PM
To: Narayanan, Vidya
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] PMIPv6 Next Steps

Hello all,

-IPv4 support: don't have a strong opinion but keeping in the base
document sounds logical to me.

- the PMIP6-MIP6 interactions, I do not see a strong need for this but
an informational document would do. 
 
Ajoy-> Why don't you see strong need for this? IMHO,  it is extremely
important that we allow co-existence of Proxy MIPv6 and 
Client MIPv6 in a given deployment. Both are IETF solution and will be
implemented by various vendors. 
I can see that handsets will implement client MIP and infrastructure
will implement Proxy MIP and so there is a need to support 
both in a given deployment. How will this work if protocol is NOT
deigned is consider these use cases? 
IMHO, we must consider these in standard track document. However,  I do
agree with you that this 
can be specified in a comparison document.  

-Regarding the anchoring approach, the need for such an approach is
specific, and architectural. Maybe it is better done where it is needed,
i.e. WiMAX. 
 
Ajoy-> Why do you think anchoring is specific to WIMAX? IMO, anchoring
based approach enables 
PMIPv6 solution to re-use same model as MIPv6. Basically in MIPv6
association is maintained 
between mobile node and home agent and the association does not change
while mobile moves from 
one access network to other. Keeping fixed association between mobile
node (PMIP client) and home agent ensures that 
PMIPv6 solution does not break the fundamental assumption made by MIPv6
protocol and thereby 
simplifies PMIPv6 solution, enables better re-use and ensures easier
adoption of various MIPv6 specific extensions by 
MIPv6 protocol. 

I was expecting more in the list of extensions for which the drafts
already exit and some even presented:
-NEMO support,
-RO support,
-handover and context transfer extension
-others.

Thx.

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2007 4:21:54 PM
Subject: [netlmm] PMIPv6 Next Steps

All,

Decided actions: 
----------------

Thanks,
Vidya