Subject: [Monami6] WG Review: Multihoming and Mobile Nodes in IPv6 (monami6)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:29:02 -0400

A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The IESG has not 
made any determination as yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is 
provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG 
mailing list ([email-masked]) by September 28.

+++

Multihoming and Mobile Nodes in IPv6 (monami6) 
==============================================

Current Status: Proposed Working Group

Chairs:
TBD

Responsible AD:
Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
List: [email-masked]
Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
HTTP Archives: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/monami6/current/index.html
FTP Archives: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/monami6

Additional Web Page:
http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf/

Description:

There is currently rapid development in the area of new wireless
standards (802.11*, 802.16, 802.20, UMTS, Bluetooth and others). At
the same time, terminals which have radio and protocol support for
two, three or even more standards are appearing. This opens the
possibility of using multiple access types simultaneously, with each
access used to transport the traffic for which it is most
appropriate. For instance, an intermittent, but high-bandwidth access
type might be used for file transfers (e.g., music download) while a
low-bandwidth, high reliability access might simultaneously be used
for a voice call.

In the meantime, IP-level mobility support protocols such as Mobile
IPv6 (RFC 3775) and NEMO Basic Support (RFC 3963) have been conceived
by the IETF to support handoffs for IPv6 mobile hosts and routers,
respectively.

However, these protocols do not today provide standardised support for
simultaneous differentiated use of multiple access technologies,
although several proposals exist for such support, and some of them
have been implemented and tested.

When a mobile host/router uses multiple network interfaces
simultaneously, or when multiple prefixes are available on a single
network interface, the mobile host/router would end up with multiple
Care-of Addresses (CoAs). In addition, the Home Agent might be
attached to multiple network interfaces, or to a single network
interface with multiple prefixes, hence resulting in the option to use
multiple IP addresses for the Home Agent. This could result in the
possibility of using a multitude of bi-directional tunnels between
pairs of {Home Agent address, CoA} and a number of associated issues:
establishment, selection and modification of multiple simultaneous
tunnels. Some of the issues are very specific to mobility and are
generally applicable to both mobile hosts and mobile routers using
Mobile IPv6 and NEMO Basic Support respectively. Some of these issues
can be resolved with relatively small and straight-forward changes to
Mobile IPv6 and NEMO Basic Support (e.g. multiple CoAs registration).

The objective of the Monami6 WG is to produce a clear problem
statement and to produce standard track specifications to the
straight-forward problems associated with the simultaneous use of
multiple addresses for either mobile hosts using Mobile IPv6 or mobile
routers using NEMO Basic Support and their variants (FMIPv6, HMIPv6,
etc). Where the effects of having multiple prefixes on a single
interface is identical to the effects of having multiple interfaces
each with a single prefix, Monami6 will consider a generalized
approach to cater for multiple prefixes available to a mobile
host/router. Once this is done, the WG might re-charter in order to
work on more generic issues that prevent to take advantage of the
multiple CoAs and HoAs available to mobile nodes and routers.

The WG will not work on tunnel selection based on dynamic discovery of
tunnel characteristics, but will assume that it is given by policy or
other mechanisms external to the Monami6 work. In particular, the WG
will consider that a tunnel is alive as long as BU/BACK can be
exchanged with the corresponding peer. In addition, local information,
such as an interface went down, can be used to quickly detect failure
of tunnel(s).

WG Deliverables:

- A document explaining the needs and the design goals for mobile
hosts and mobile routers using multiple global addresses on its
interface(s). [Informational]

- An analysis document explaining what are the limitations for
mobile hosts using multiple simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home
Agent addresses using Mobile IPv6, whether issues are specific to
Mobile IPv6 or not [Informational].

- A "MCoA" solution to register multiple Care-of Addresses for a
given home address [Standard Track].

- A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of
policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from
the Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the
choice of the interface [Standard Track].

Goals and Milestones:

APR 06 Submit Motivations and Goals to IESG
APR 06 Submit Analysis of the use of Multiple Simultaneous
Care-of Addresses and Home Agents in Mobile IPv6
APR 06 Submit Multiple CoA Registration to IESG
DEC 06 Submit Flow/binding policies exchange to IESG 

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:13:31 -0400

On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:29:02AM -0400, The IESG wrote:
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The
> IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following draft charter
> was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please
> send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]) by September
> 28.

Here is some feedback encouraging this working group, and proposing some
minor enhancements to the charter.  I've aggregated this from the
following individuals (alphabetically):

Rafael Apaza (FAA)
Terry Bell (Verizon)
Steve Bretmersky (Cleveland State University)
Bob Dimond (Verizon)
Wesley Eddy (Verizon)
Joe Ishac (NASA)
Will Ivancic (NASA)
Dave Stewart (Verizon)

The aviation community is currently engaged in several efforts attempting to
revamp aeronautical communications.  A common vision is to move towards an
IP-based system which would be simultaneously usable for air traffic
management, airline operations, safety and security, and passenger
services.  However, certain issues currently make IPv6 (including the Mobile
IPv6 and NEMO extensions) somewhat difficult to deploy for these
applications.

The Mobile Communications Network Architecute (MCNA) study recently completed
by Boeing and several subcontractors (including Avaliant, Honeywell, and ITT),
under funding by NASA and the FAA, identified several areas where an existing
ISO/OSI-based system, called the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network
(ATN), appears to have features which IPv6 lacks.  Some of these
features include those that the proposed monami6 identifies as its
deliverables.  We see this as an excellent and timely development for
ongoing efforts to apply IPv6 to aeronautical communications, and fully
encourage the formation of this working group.  If the IETF does not
develop these technologies, then they are likely to be developed by
aviation groups (e.g. the ICAO or AEEC), who might not architect them
for general Internet use, and may not be as diligent in their process as
the IETF.  Additionally, we strongly prefer that the IETF solve these
matters, so that the solutions may be available in off-the-shelf
equipment, and be well understood and documented.

Since the Mobile IPv6, NEMO, and shim6 groups have all avoided this problem
space, it is important that this group be started.  From the charters:

MIP6 - "In particular, this protocol does not attempt to solve: Mobile routers"
NEMO - "This document does not discuss multihoming for mobile routers"
SHIM6 - "the working group will not take on such mobility capabilities
directly"

It appears that the proposed monami6 group is a good way to accomodate these
holes in all three parallel efforts.

We suggest some slight changes to the proposed charter:

1) It would be prudent to explicitly state that the working group should be
advised by or coordinated with the existing Mobile IPv6, NEMO, and shim6
working groups, to ensure good integration and compatibility.  We are concerned
that all these technologies be able to operate in conjunction.

2) The charter text seems weighted toward problem scenarios that involve
multiple distinct types of links/media.  The final solution should work
when multiple instances of a single type of link are present as well.
I.e. it should support "horizontal" integration as well as the type of
vertical integration described by the current text.

3) Existing mechansims for policy exchange (such as that found in ATN) should
be looked at as inputs, so that the solution is similar in features/ability
to current systems (e.g. ATN's adaptation of ES-IS or IPsec's IPSP).

4) The group should consider how route optimization affects its work (in both
the typical Mobile IPv6 sense and the propsed methods of route optimization in
NEMO).  This may impact the use of both multiple care-of addresses, and the
exchange of policy information.

-Wes

--
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~weddy
_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6