Subject: Dual Stack Moving Internet (DSMI)

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:08:49 +0900

Hi folks,

I and some of related people are trying to propose a new BoF,
(Dual Stack Moving Internet (DSMI))at upcoming IETF-67 and the
discussion with ADs is in progress (it is not fixed yet).

http://icl.kut.ac.kr/dsmi

Here's a mailing list for the issue discussion :

   General Discussion: [email-masked]
   To Subscribe: http://icl.kut.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/dsmi

The objective of this BoF is to develop a mobility management
protocol that supports dual stack mobile node's roaming over
IPv6 and IPv4 NETLMM domains with single IP address and does
not require additional host-side software update.

At this time, there is a related draft.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jeong-netlmm-dual-stack-moving-ps-00.txt

Please make comments on this stuff and don't hesitate to ask further 
question.

Hopefully, I will request to schedule this BoF, if we identify what a
this BoF would like to do and discussion is mature before cutoff
(Sept. 25).

Regards,
Myung-Ki,
ETRI

p.s. Apologies for possible cross-postings.

---

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:31:37 +0900

Hi James,

I thought the NetLMM WG had gone further to achieve it's basic aims
(network-based *localized* mobility protocol).

This issue with IPv4-IPv6 roaming in federated NetLMM domains might
be kind of issues on handover between localized mobility management
domains or one of goals for network-based *global* moblity protocols
which should be considered some day.

As Pekka pointed out, this problem can be also solved by IPv6 transition
mechanisms, but we'd prefer *network-based* solutions without any host- 
side signaling or upgrade, rather than using transition mechanisms.
If NetLMM can support this (*seamless*), then there is of benefit to
deployment.

This problem is a kind of deployment one, not an original
problem of NetLMM, as you already know.
I believe this is not trivial.

Of course, there isn't even a WG draft on NETLMM protocol yet, and if
everything is subject to change, there will be a change to look at it.

If the NetLMM WG can cover all the issue above, it will seem to be
fine with me, but I am hoping we can continue to discuss about it
and go further in NetLMM WG or any other place.

Thanks,
Myung-Ki,

James Kempf wrote:
> Myung-Ki,
>
> The discussion on your proposal seems to have gotten a bit of hand, so I 
> won't say much more.
> 
> Basically, having a BOF to extend NETLMM before the actual protocol is 
> complete seems like it might not be such a good idea. That doesn't mean 
> that the extensions you have proposed should not be considered, its just 
> that the timing is a bit awkward.
> 
> I'd consul patience right now until the WG has completed the current 
> charter. We expect to have the protocol complete and be ready for 
> rechartering early 2007, at that time we can add your proposal to the 
> list of items to consider. In the meantime, there's nothing preventing 
> you from continuing to work on your idea with other interested folks, 
> have an informal bar BOF, and refine it, so that, when the time comes, 
> you have the strongest possible case to present to the WG for accepting 
> it into the charter.
> 
>            jak