Subject: Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:14:11 -0800

I regret not making time to comment on this to date, but there're 
a couple of points in Thomas's mail that I want to support
and one I want to disagree with -

Pro:

I like that Thomas add the Y1541 NSIS document to the NSIS list;
seems like good diplomacy.

I agree with Thomas that it's not appropriate to reference the
non-WG nsis-tunnel work.  But btw, I think the overall NSIS section
is very good.

Con:

> > In addition to this effort, other technologies in the IETF support
> > some form of multihoming, most notably HIP, which is an experimental
> > protocol with many similarities to shim6, and SCTP. The reason SCTP
> > was not chosen as a generic approach to multihoming was that it
> > assumes SCTP as the transport layer protocol.
> 
> Drop the above.

I disagree, though perhaps Thomas is reacting to the lack of reference
to IPv6 in the paragraph.  ITU NGN has many proposals which apply
SCTP broadly, and I believe it's worth our stating that we think
this is not appropriate.  

Allison

_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:42:15 +0200

Hi all,

>>> Mobility.
>>>
>>> The IPv6 mobility model, Mobile Support in IPv6 aka Mobile IPv6, has
>>> been adopted from the IPv4 version Mobile IP, with some
modifications
>>> and extensions.  Especially the security model for route
optimisation
>>> is different.  Mobile IPv6 is documented in RFC 3775 and RFC 3776,
>>> with an optional extension in RFC 4283.  RFC 4225 explains the
>>> rational and design behind the route optimisation security model,
and
>>> its limitations.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand why Mobility is being called out for
>> discussion. Is this a "NGN" topic? Mobility is _NOT_ what I normally
>> think of as "network infrastructure". Its largely an e2e approach
>> involving end nodes (mobile & correspondant nodes) and servers (Home
>> Agents). It is built on top of a network, it is not part of the
"core"
>> network itself.  Also, there are a lot of IETF WGs that are doing
IPv6
>> work that might be related. E.g., autoconf/manet. Do we mention them
>> all? What is the criteria for deciding  what to mention and what not?
>>
>> Also, the above isn't entirely accurate. For example, there is no
>> route optimization in MIPv4, so it doesn't make sense to say
>> "especially the security model for route optimization is different".
>
>I just answered the questions :-)
>
>Could we get some input on this from Pekka that wrote the text? I  
>have no feelings one wy ro the other. I didn't make any changes here.

I think that this looks OK.  Just for everyone's info, I would assume
MobIKE
would be within what NGN is looking at.  3GPP WLAN interworking & UMA
(essentially GSM voice tunneled over IP/WLAN) use IKEv2 for interworking
back into the core network.  There is mobility between home & wide-area
cellular networks.  NGN is starting to look into this area, though I am
not
sure what everything is that they are investigating for this kind of
mobility.

John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:25:12 +0200

Fwiw, I'm happy to contribute towards any future discussions for this.

John 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 10 January, 2006 17:27
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Kurt Erik Lindqvist; Thomas Narten; Loughney John
(Nokia-NRC/Helsinki); Leslie Daigle; IAB IAB; [email-masked];
Margaret Wasserman; Bradner Scott
Subject: Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document

On 01/10/2006 04:40 AM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> I have no problems with this version. I don't understand the mindset 
> of the people asking the question well enough to judge whether it's 
> really on target. I wonder if we are missing some general 
> scene-setting at the beginning? Time is short to debate this, but it's

> possible we should say something like
> 
> We remind the NGN community that IPv6 is a relatively conservative 
> replacement for IPv4, intentionally with no revolutionary features, 
> and that it is intended to overcome the addressing limitations and 
> some specific omissions in IPv4 without in any way fundamentally 
> changing the nature of the Internet. As such, we see very limited risk

> and much to gain by unambiguous adoption of IPv6.
> 
> Or something.
> 
>   Brian

There's no question about adoption of IPv6.  They love it.  My
evaluation is that their mindset is more one of showing SG13 how well
IPv6 fits the NGN goals.  In order to do that better they (1) want a
roadmap from the IETF and (2) intend to bring some drafts in on
enhancements to "IPv6" (for a broad definition of the term) for the gaps
between NGN goals and IPv6 capabilities.  One of my intentions was to
encourage early review of their gap analyses and maybe show them that
IPv6 can already do what they want in some way.  That's why I was very
happy when Margaret suggested getting volunteer experts to help.  It
appears that they actually know a lot already, but could use a little
support from those who see the architectural vision.  Anyway, I hope
that after this meeting they will be able to send at least one of their
documents for review and response by ipv6dir.

swb