Subject: [Mip4] Bar BOF on Multilink Flows

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 03:05:48 -0700

Folks,

There's been some discussion over the last couple days about multiple
interfaces and Mobile IP, however, I think this may be just one piece of a
larger problem: how to utilize multiple wireless links to achieve more
robustness for logical flows. The best example application I've seen on this
so far is an MPEG compressed video session, in which a base layer is sent
over a cellular link with wide geographical availability, while hotspot
links are utilized as they become available for additional layers to
increase fidelity. The advantage of this over handing over the entire flow
is that the handover signaling might get cut off by movement out of the
hotspot, causing the stream to drop momentarily; whereas, if multiple links
are utilized, there is just a reduction in quality when the hotspot stream
drops.

Here's the drafts I've found that deal with some part of this issue:

draft-nomadv6-mobileip-filters-00.txt
draft-soliman-mobileip-flow-move-04.txt (expired)
draft-elmalki-mobileip-bicasting-v6-04.txt (expired)
draft-matsuoka-multilink-transport-00.txt

I believe SCTP declined to allow multilink flows, and I'd like to understand
why. Multilink Mobile IP may be one part of the solution, but also some kind
of striping transport protocol (on which there has been some research) might
be part. Or, it might also be the case that the problem domain is so
restricted that it should just be left up to the application.

In any event, I'd like to organize a bar BOF on Monday night after the
evening session, 10 PM, meet at the IETF registration desk. Anybody up for
it?

            jak

-- 
Mip4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:28:42 +0200

Sounds interesting. I'll be there.

	Henrik

---

From: Thomas Noel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:23:30 +0200

Hi James,

Good idea ,

 > draft-matsuoka-multilink-transport-00.txt

There are several other drafts on this topics :

- draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-02.txt
- draft-montavont-mip6-mmi-01.txt
- draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-00.txt
- draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering-v6-00.txt

Thomas

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

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:46:48 +0900

Hi James,

> evening session, 10 PM, meet at the IETF registration desk. Anybody up for

Of course I would be up for it (since I raised the idea in a previous
mail :-), but:

- I would prefer to raise the issue in the MIP6 WG first, and call for a
bar BOF after, depending on the discussion,

- I guess there were valuable reasons behing splitting mobile IP in two
(I mean IPv4 and IPv6), and the same would apply here,

- If BOF there is, it should not only cover MNs, but also fixed nodes
because those too may have to deal with dual interfaces.

Thierry.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:55:49 -0800

Thierry,

If the WG chairs agree, then by all means raise the issue in the MIP6 WG.
The bar BOF is intended to examine more archiectural questions: why did
multilink flows get pulled out of SCTP, has anything changed in the
application space (especially with wireless) to make them more attractive or
is there new research that characterizes them better, how should the
functionality be partitioned between layers if it looks like a good idea,
etc. I would guess Mobile IP support for multiple interfaces will come up,
but its not the only topic I'd like to see discussed, and I don't see the
architectural question restricted just to IPv6 at this point.

It seems you've got a more narrowly focussed agenda, just Mobile IPv6 or
maybe just IPv6 at the network layer. You're welcome to come to the bar BOF
too, and I've heard enough interest expressed in the more general discussion
that I'm convinced its a good idea to discuss it, so I'd like to hold the
bar BOF regardless of what the MIP chairs agree to. Whether the discussion
goes beyond that is an open question at this point.

            jak

---

From: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:35:16 +0100

Hello James,

It is a good idea, arranging a Bar BOF to discuss Multiple Links. We will 
gladly participate.

Most of the authors of drafts that you and Thomas have listed contributed to

the ML discussion on following subjects in July.
	new I-D on HA filtering
	multiple CoAs registration

Hope to discuss them in a useful way, as you suggested.

Regards,
Koojana

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von James
> Kempf
> Gesendet: Montag, 27. Oktober 2003 08:56
> An: Thierry Ernst
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Betreff: Re: [Mip6] Bar BOF on Multilink Flows
> 
> Thierry,
>