Subject: [Mip6] load balancing and HA (re-)assignment

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:15:29 +0200

If HA assignment can help load balancing by selecting a less loaded HA,
it works only in the bootstrapping phase and as the load is not
proportional to the number of served MN (i.e., the load doesn't come only
from background traffic) IMHO it is more important to be able to
move some MNs from an overloaded HA, i.e., load balancing is a good
reason to ask for HA re-assignement but not for HA assignment.

So I believe we should work on HA-HA and HA-switch documents and
as the HA-switch is more mature make it a WG item and submit it
to IESG review ASAP?

Regards

[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:03:37 +0200

Francis Dupont wrote:

> If HA assignment can help load balancing by selecting a less loaded
> HA, it works only in the bootstrapping phase and as the load is not 
> proportional to the number of served MN (i.e., the load doesn't come
> only from background traffic) IMHO it is more important to be able to

I think I agree with this perspective.

> So I believe we should work on HA-HA and HA-switch documents and as
> the HA-switch is more mature make it a WG item and submit it to IESG
> review ASAP?

Before making it a WG item I'd look at whether bootstrapping with DHCPv6
doesn't involve use of some pre-defined DHCPv6 message ("re-acquire"?)
that is sent by server to client and that could be reused or extended to
do the semantics of HA Switch message.

Otherwise, the HA switch draft looks simple and rational and is
something good to work on and advance probably quickly, IMHO.

Alex

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:51:26 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> the "reconfigure" message

=> I believe it is the right answer when DHCPv6 is used (but I have
to read the last general bootstrapping I-D).

=> we agree and the HA switch draft is already in the agenda of
the next meeting.

Thanks

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:12:07 +0900

BTW, I would like to discuss a concern I have: whatever the solution
for HA re-assignment, I think everyone agree that it should work for
both MIP6 and NEMO Basic Support. Right ? 

So, I'm wondering if the mip6 group is the right venue for a working
group item. 

A possible good venue could be, I think, the Monami6 WG, because it is
chartered to work on both MIP6 and NEMO Basic Support multihoming
extensions. Here, we fall into one of the multihoming configuration (of
course Monami6 is not presently chartered for HA re-assignement, but I
think it falls into its area of expertise).

I would like to get a sense of the WG regarding this point.

I think we will have sufficient time at Vancounver to add such a
discussion on the Monami6 agenda if someone want to lead it.

Thierry (speaking for himself).

 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:51:26 +0200
Francis Dupont <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    Before making it a WG item I'd look at whether bootstrapping with
>    DHCPv6 doesn't involve use of some pre-defined DHCPv6 message
>    ("re-acquire"?)
> 
>    that is sent by server to client and that could be reused or
>    extended to do the semantics of HA Switch message.
>

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:35:26 +0200

=> yes!

=> bootstrapping is already considered as the right venue and
HA assignment and discovery are clearly parts of it. I agree
HA re-assignment is not but it seems to be enough close.

=> until there is something specific for Monami6 I believe the WG has
enough work...

   
=> agenda sharing is enough issue. One can believe it is fine (it gives
more time) but past experiences are not good (duplicate items,
more likely schedule conflicts, etc).

Regards

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:53:34 +0900

Hi,

>    BTW, I would like to discuss a concern I have: whatever the
>    solution for HA re-assignment, I think everyone agree that it
>    should work for both MIP6 and NEMO Basic Support. Right ? 
>    
> => yes!
Good.
 
>    So, I'm wondering if the mip6 group is the right venue for a
>    working group item. 
>    

Probably yes, but how the MIP6 group will consider the NEMO
specificities ? Isn't this also confusing for the group ?

>    A possible good venue could be, I think, the Monami6 WG, because it
>    is chartered to work on both MIP6 and NEMO Basic Support
>    multihoming extensions. Here, we fall into one of the multihoming
>    configuration (of course Monami6 is not presently chartered for HA
>    re-assignement, but I think it falls into its area of expertise).
>    

Monami6 has 4 items. How many for MIP6 ?

> => agenda sharing is enough issue. One can believe it is fine (it
> gives more time) but past experiences are not good (duplicate items,

This is exactly why everything related to multihoming in MIP6/NEMO
should be moved to Monami6, particularly when it concerns both MIP6 and
NEMO.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:05:48 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> => bootstrapping is already considered as the right venue and HA
>> assignment and discovery are clearly parts of it. I agree HA
>> re-assignment is not but it seems to be enough close.
> 

Me deviating... I agree that the MIP6 WG should somehow consult the NEMO
WG with respect to NEMO specificities.

>> => until there is something specific for Monami6 I believe the WG
>> has enough work...
> 
> 

Well, current charter mentions 8 milestones, 17 I-Ds, 2 RFCs (subject to
update at the meeting).

Monami6 has 4 milestones.  I personally believe that is focused and
motivating.

>> gives more time) but past experiences are not good (duplicate
>> items, more likely schedule conflicts, etc).
> 
> should be moved to Monami6, particularly when it concerns both MIP6
> and NEMO.

But which monami6 WG Deliverable?  The closest I could find is
"Flow/binding policies exchange" but this terminology has not been
discussed at all here.

During Monami6 BoF it was discussed thoroughly what exactly should the
WG work on so a Charter was issued.  Is the Monami6 trying to modify its
Charter with new items so quickly after creation?

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:18:24 +0900

> Me deviating... I agree that the MIP6 WG should somehow consult the
> NEMO WG with respect to NEMO specificities.

> Well, current charter mentions 8 milestones, 17 I-Ds, 2 RFCs (subject
> to update at the meeting).
> 

Actually, why not ? I was thinking about a new deliverable (because
it's clearer), but debating the exact features may well lead us to
consider HA-reassigment in any of the solutions. 

What I mean is that even if HA-reassignment is done in MIP6, both
HA-reasssigment, multiple CoA registration, and policies exchanges have
to be compatible. 

By the way, I would like to point to issue "HA synchronization" of
draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues. 

> WG work on so a Charter was issued.  Is the Monami6 trying to modify
> its Charter with new items so quickly after creation?

Why not ?

Well, adding a new item would require Monami6 to be rechartered if that
given work doesn't correspond to the charter. But there is no rules at
the IETF that a WG just approved cannot be rechartered, so this is not a
dead end, and I wouldn't mind to negociate that if this is the sense of
the MIP6/NEMO/MONAMI6 WG that this is the right thing to do.

But, I don't think this wouldn't be a dramatic change to the charter..

My personal view on all of this is that working on this topic in Monami6
would make it easier for everyone, the IETFers, and the people
interested in the standards defined by the IETF.

Thierry

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:32:56 -0800

Francis,

There's an item on the Vancouver meeting agenda to talk about HA switch. At 
the end of the discussion, we can do a straw poll to see whether there's 
interest in making it a WG document.

          jak