Subject: Re: [netlmm] The way forward as discussed during the WG meeting

From: "Mohana Jeyatharan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:51:54 +0800

Hello Jonne and All,

We proposed two topics during the IETF'71 meeting. Below is the
explanation. Pls see and be free to comment.
Thanks in advance.

PMIPv6 multihoming and Multiple Interfaces related hand-off issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The current base draft only identifies one way of implementing
multi-homing concept in PMIP. That is by providing a unique prefix per
interface. But, multi-homing can be provided using single prefix per MN
also. Thus multi-homing should be analyzed w.r.t. to single prefix model
as well. Multi-homing in base draft is only concerned with basic
simultaneous attachment via multiple interfaces. This is one of the
concepts of multi-homing. But, as we know multi-homing has much more
benefits such as simultaneous usage (a flow coming via all interfaces of
MN for acquiring higher bandwidth or load sharing) and filter rule
setting where MN wants a particular flow to arrive via a certain
interface of MN. That is a particular flow is preferred to traverse via
a certain interface of MN. How is this possible when the current base
draft considers the bindings of the MN interfaces as separate PMIP
caches. These are some very generic issues. But, there is much more
which we have highlighted in
draft-jeyatharan-netlmm-multi-interface-ps-01, Vijay's multihoming draft
and Ahmad Muhann'a multihoming draft. 

In addition to that, when Multiple Interfaced MN does horizontal and
vertical handoffs in PMIP using single prefix per MN model and multiple
prefixes per MN model there a new set of issues that one needs to take
care of. There are lot of people interested in such issues and this is
clear from Vijay Devarapalli's and Ahmad Muhanna's multi-homing drafts.
Our draft also analysis(draft jeyatharan et al.) these issues

In our opinion, since PMIP is going to be deployed in 3GPP all these
issues which we have highlighted in our drafts, such classic
multi-homing issues (simultaneous usage, filter rules), hand-off issues
and also some Multiple Interface PMIP/CMIP issues needs to be analyzed
and appropriate solutions needs to be worked on. We would like to get
some consensus on these topics. From last meeting it seems many people
are interested in it but needed some more explanation as to what the
problem is. Hope this short explanation will start some discussion in
the ML in this re-chartering item(Multihoming and Multiple Interface
related hand-offs).

Finally thanks Ahmad for mentioning our interest in your mail.

BR,
Mohana

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Soininen Jonne (NSN FI/Espoo)
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:21 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] The way forward as discussed during the WG meeting

Hello everybody,

Now that the IETF week is over, I think it is time to recap the meeting
outcome related to the rechartering of our beloved working group.

The consensus of the meeting was to concentrate on the work for the next
twelve months. We discussed in the meeting, which would be the work
items we would think should be done first.

The meeting was able to identify the following:

 * GRE Keying
 * PMIP6/MIP6 interactions
 * AAA - Diameter & Radius
 * LMA discovery

We'll have to see what is the right place to do the AAA work. It is
either in netlmm or in the relative AAA working group (Dime or Radex).

LMA discovery on the other hand is something that might be either solved
in AAA or specific separate procedure.

We couldn't find consensus on other work items, yet. Main reason was the
lack of clarity of the work needed. Thus, if we want to do one or two
items in addition to the now agreed work, we have to understand what the
work is, and its importance.

Thus, we discussed that the right way of identifying other work items,
we would need to have a paragraph or two describing the work, and
listing the people that would be interested to work on the topic. I
would like to ask the people that are interested to add work on the
charter to

1) Describe the topic with a paragraph or two (what is needed, not the
solution itself)
2) Who would be the people who would be able and interested to invest to
the work. 

I have to remind everybody that time is of essence in deciding the new
charter. Our dear AD said that we should move quickly here. Thus, if you
think additional work is needed, please, write the description quickly
and list the people that would work on the topic.

Notice that the people who are listed as interested in additional topics
will also commit to further the other work in the charter through
contribution and review.

The consensus of the working group is tested on the mailing list. Thus,
the described way forward should be considered as a proposal. However,
if somebody would think this way forward is not the correct one, I would
expect those individuals to justify their objections quite carefully.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,

Jonne.

--
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

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

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:23:01 -0700

> the ML in this re-chartering item(Multihoming and Multiple Interface

I agree on this restricted scope. I am mainly interested in
specifying how a mobile can use multiple interfaces
simultaneously when it attaches to a PMIPv6 domain and how
handovers across interfaces can be supported using PMIPv6.

Vijay