Subject: [netlmm] Scenarios for PMIP-MIP interactions

From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:35:02 -0800

Hi all,

The topic of interworking between MIPv6 and PMIPv6 has been discussed in
he last three meetings in IETF (see
draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions-02). You may want also to take a
look at the slides I presented in Vancouver
(http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/slides/netlmm-3.pdf).

Three different scenarios have been identified:

- Scenario A: MIPv6 is used as global mobility protocol and PMIPv6 is
used as local mobility protocol. This means that the address managed by
the PMIPv6 LMA is the MIPv6 CoA. No issues were identified in this
scenario which is also described in RFC 4830. 

- Scenario B: in a given access network which supports the MAG
functionality, there are nodes supporting MIP and nodes not supporting
MIP. For the latter nodes, PMIPv6 should be used; while it should not be
used for the former. There seems to be a good consensus among the
authors of the draft to consider this out of the scope of the IETF work
as it requires a system level solution.

- Scenario C: the MIPv6 home link is a PMIPv6 link. This implies that
PMIPv6 LMA and MIPv6 are collocated and the PMIPv6 LMA manages the MIPv6
HoA. The draft identifies some issues with this scenario and also
suggests possible solutions for some of the issues. Please refer to
section 3.3 and section 4.3 of draft-giaretta to find a complete
analysis of the scenario.

There has been some discussion at the last IETF meeting on the need for
IETF to work on any of these scenarios. I would like to hear opinions of
the WG to develop an item to describe the issues with these scenarios
and respective guidelines to solve them.

Thanks

Gerardo

 

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

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:00:53 -0800

> and respective guidelines to solve them.

IMO, we should work on all three scenarios.

Vijay

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:37:37 -0800 (PST)

> IMO, we should work on all three scenarios.

Yes. I agree, we should work on all scenarios.

Sri

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 22:23:18 -0800

Folks,
For the benefit of the people on the list, could someone please send a
justification of all the scenarios to the mailing list?  I've heard it
offline, but it would be good to have that sent to the list to jump
start the discussion.  Simply saying that we need to work on these
without a discussion of the need for the scenarios is not useful.  

Thanks,
Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:38 PM
> To: Vijay Devarapalli
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Scenarios for PMIP-MIP interactions
> 
> 
> 
> >> The topic of interworking between MIPv6 and PMIPv6 has 
> been discussed 
> >> in he last three meetings in IETF (see 
> >> draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions-02). You may want 
> also to take 
> >> a look at the slides I presented in Vancouver 
> >> used as local mobility protocol. This means that the 
> address managed 
> >> by the PMIPv6 LMA is the MIPv6 CoA. No issues were 
> identified in this 
> >> functionality, there are nodes supporting MIP and nodes not 
> >> supporting MIP. For the latter nodes, PMIPv6 should be 
> used; while it 
> >> should not be used for the former. There seems to be a 
> good consensus 
> >> among the authors of the draft to consider this out of the 
> scope of 
> >> the IETF work as it requires a system level solution.
> >>
> >> PMIPv6 LMA and MIPv6 are collocated and the PMIPv6 LMA manages the 
> >> MIPv6 HoA. The draft identifies some issues with this scenario and 
> >> also suggests possible solutions for some of the issues. 
> Please refer 
> >> to section 3.3 and section 4.3 of draft-giaretta to find a 
> complete 
> >> There has been some discussion at the last IETF meeting on 
> the need 
> >> for IETF to work on any of these scenarios. I would like to hear 
> >> opinions of the WG to develop an item to describe the issues with 
> >> these scenarios and respective guidelines to solve them.
> >

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:55:23 -0800

Hi Vidya,

AFAIK, all three scenarios have folks interested in using and
deploying them. In the IETF, we need to document the issues,
if any, for each of these scenarios and explain how each of
the scenarios are supposed to work.

Vijay

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 17:58:12 -0800

Hi Vijay,
I'm not disputing that we have people interested in the scenarios.  At
the IETF, we should be able to debate the importance of these scenarios
and make a call on what we work on.  Interest is never just enough to
take on work.  

It would help if you can send a short paragraph on each of the three
scenarios.  Please cover the following points as part of each one: 

* What type of deployments is the scenario useful for? 
* What is the alternative for the deployment and what is the advantage
of supporting a particular scenario? 
* What is lost without support for the particular scenario? 

If we have the above information, we can have a good discussion that is
actually about the need for solving a scenario that goes beyond just
having people interested in it. 

Vidya

> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:55 PM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: Sri Gundavelli; [email-masked]

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:14:05 -0800

> and make a call on what we work on.  Interest is never just enough to

There is much more interest than folks just wanting to work
on an internet draft in the IETF in this case. I hope you
didn't miss that. :)

> scenarios.  Please cover the following points as part of each one: 

Sure, but I am not interested in an extended discussion aimed
at delaying this as much as possible.

> * What is lost without support for the particular scenario? 

Scenario A - This is useful for deployments where PMIPv6 is used
for local mobility management and Mobile IPv6 is used for global
mobility management. I believe 3GPP2 has adopted this architecture.
An alternative could be to run HMIPv6 for local mobility management
and MIPv6 for global mobility management. But this has a
disadvantage of the mobile node having to maintain two separate
bindings in an hierarchical manner and the tunneling overhead

Scenario B - This is useful for deployments for accommodating both
hosts that implement a host-based mobility management protocol
like Mobile IPv6 and hosts that don't implement any mobility
management protocol within the same access network. I haven't
heard of anyone wanting to deploy this, but I believe we should
analyze issues that might arise due to this scenario.

Scenario C - This is useful for deployments where PIMPv6 is used
for managing mobility for a mobile node as long as it is attached
to an access network that is either restricted to a single access
technology, or having a small footprint and MIPv6 is used for
managing mobility the moment the mobile node moves out of the
PMIPv6 domain. There are a number of other reason, but I hope
you are not looking for an exhaustive list. 3GPP has adopted an
architecture similar to scenario C. There are some issues
associated with this scenario that 3GPP might have not considered.
Luckily all the issues are addressable. So thats what we need to
do before somebody deploys a hacked up version of PMIPv6 and MIPv6.

> having people interested in it. 

Ok, but I expect a response from you that actually leads to a
good discussion.

Vijay