Subject: software for Mobile IPv6

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:21:30 +0900

Hi,

De-emphasizing the use of Host-based mobility?  (protocol Mobile IPv6)

There is an open-source package for Mobile IPv6 at umip.org.  The linux 
mainline kernel has options for MIP6.  We also maintain an internal 
package implementing Mobile IPv6.  Also Cisco IOS has it but its HA is 
buggy.

Alex

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 04:08:05 +0000

Hi,

On 15 Nov 2016, at 02:21, Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

There is an open-source package for Mobile IPv6 at umip.org<http://umip.org>.  The linux mainline kernel has options for MIP6.  We also maintain an internal package implementing Mobile IPv6.  Also Cisco IOS has it but its HA is buggy.

I discussed this with Tim Winters today (as co-author). Our current view is to add words to the effect that host-based MIPv6 is not widely implemented or deployed, and thus that  support is not required unless the functionality is explicitly required.  I remember doing trials with MIPL and the Cisco HA maybe 7-8 years ago, which revealed a number of issues.

It seems there is more interest in network mobility?

Tim

---

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:00:45 +0000

________________________________
发件人: ipv6 [[email-masked]] 代表 Tim Chown [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2016年11月16日 12:08
收件人: Alexandre Petrescu
抄送: IPv6
主题: Re: software for Mobile IPv6

Hi,

[Xiaohu] Did you mean network-based mobility by "network mobility"? If so, yes, I think it's the current situation.

Tim

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:02:22 +0000

On 16 Nov 2016, at 05:00, Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

发件人: ipv6 [[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>] 代表 Tim Chown [[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>]
发送时间: 2016年11月16日 12:08
收件人: Alexandre Petrescu
抄送: IPv6
主题: Re: software for Mobile IPv6

Hi,

On 15 Nov 2016, at 02:21, Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
De-emphasizing the use of Host-based mobility?  (protocol Mobile IPv6)
There is an open-source package for Mobile IPv6 at umip.org<http://umip.org/>.  The linux mainline kernel has options for MIP6.  We also maintain an internal package implementing Mobile IPv6.  Also Cisco IOS has it but its HA is buggy.

Sorry, yes, I did.

Tim

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:06:58 +0900

Le 16/11/2016 à 14:02, Tim Chown a écrit :
>> *发件人:* ipv6 [[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>]
>> 代表 Tim Chown [[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>]
>> *发送时间:* 2016年11月16日 12:08
>> *收件人:* Alexandre Petrescu
>> *抄送:* IPv6
>> *主题:* Re: software for Mobile IPv6
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On 15 Nov 2016, at 02:21, Alexandre Petrescu
>>> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>>> wrote:
>>> There is an open-source package for Mobile IPv6 at umip.org
>>> <http://umip.org/>.  The linux mainline kernel has options for MIP6.
>>> We also maintain an internal package implementing Mobile IPv6.  Also
>>> Cisco IOS has it but its HA is buggy.
>>
>> I discussed this with Tim Winters today (as co-author). Our current
>> view is to add words to the effect that host-based MIPv6 is not widely
>> implemented or deployed, and thus that  support is not required unless
>> the functionality is explicitly required.  I remember doing trials
>> with MIPL and the Cisco HA maybe 7-8 years ago, which revealed a
>> number of issues.

That is still the case.  The Cisco HA software is buggy in the lifetime 
department.  Some human reply seems to indicate they dont intend to 
maintain it any further, and prefer PMIP instead.

PMIP is something difficult to experiment with in live networks.  It's 
hard to identify wether PMIP is present in live networks - there is no 
publically available data telling whether that live network runs PMIP.

It's easy to identify whether a particular live network runs DNS, ICMP, 
BGP or so protocols, but for PMIP there is no way.

>> [Xiaohu] Did you mean network-based mobility by "network mobility"? If
>> so, yes, I think it's the current situation.
>
> Sorry, yes, I did.

I think it is safe to say that 3GPP  uses PMIP in its specs.  But I have 
some doubts about live networks.

Alex

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:08:48 +1100

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <[email-masked]> on behalf of Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 3:08 PM
To: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Cc: IPv6 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: software for Mobile IPv6

⇨ Only on paper. There is no real use of either MIP or PMIP in the real world. There were lots of “IETF interest” in network-based solutions because that’s what 3GPP wants, but it’s not actually true because it’s not deployed. Both PMIP and DSMIP are referenced in 3GPP specs for different use cases but I doubt anyone deployed either. 

Hesham

    Tim

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    [email-masked]
    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:39:39 +0900

Hi Hesham,

I reply to this even though the original poster did not really mean
"network mobility" but rather "network-based mobility".

Le 16/11/2016 à 22:08, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: ipv6 <[email-masked]> on
> behalf of Tim Chown <[email-masked]> Date: Wednesday, 16
> November 2016 at 3:08 PM To: Alexandre Petrescu
> <[email-masked]> Cc: IPv6 <[email-masked]> Subject: Re:
>  software for Mobile IPv6
>
> ⇨ Only on paper. There is no real use of either MIP or PMIP in the
> real world.

One would have heard by today about the use of Mobile IP network 
mobility in cars.  Otherwise more advertising is needed.

Mobile IP is closer to large scale deployments than PMIP.

In the past there was a large deployment of Mobile P called iDen.  I 
suppose it still exists, although not sure whether it involves Mobile 
IPv6 or just Mobile IP.

Many cars on the market today have built-in ability to connect to either
cellular network or WiFi - the most notable example is Tesla.  The
switch is happening manually today (a driver presses a button on the
screen) and the IP sessions are interrupted during this manual handover.
  The logical step is to consider Mobile IP (and not PMIP) to make
automatic seamless handovers; PMIP can not be used because car
manufacturers do not control access networks but do have their own
control centers in the cloud where the HA presumably sits.

> There were lots of “IETF interest” in network-based solutions
> because that’s what 3GPP wants, but it’s not actually true because
> it’s not deployed. Both PMIP and DSMIP are referenced in 3GPP specs
> for different use cases but I doubt anyone deployed either.

As for PMIP - I tend to agree with you: I have not seen myself any PMIP
deployment other than laboratory trials; these are relatively advanced,
but not really to the extent as of claiming that all 3GPP networks do
PMIP - they dont.

All these said, I would be happier if (1) Cisco debugged the lifetimes 
of the IOS MIPv6 HA and (2) umip.org got a new maintainer.

Alex

> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email-masked] Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6