Subject: Re: [Mip6] Draft Agenda for WG meeting at IETF58

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:35:33 -0800

Nicolas,

> I think it really is the good time to initiate discussion on multihoming
> at next IETF, even if it is only a short discussion. I think it is
> better than a bar BOF because we never know where discussion can go...
>

There is a general architectural issue about how to deal with multilink
flows. It is not clear, for example, whether MIP should be involved in
multilink flows; one can make an equally good argument that it should be
done at the transport layer, or by adding a new layer between IP and
transport, or perhaps there is some other way that is architecturally
cleaner.

The intent of the bar BOF is to discuss this. If it were not so close to a
meeting, we could set up a mailing list and have an official BOF. And, if it
turns out from the bar BOF discussion that an official BOF is what people
want, then we can do that for the next IETF in Seoul.

But I do not think we can simply ignore the underlying architectural issue
and assume that everything can be done with MIP just because the home agent
provides a convenient middlebox where protocol changes can be stuck. In the
end, MIP may play a role, but we need to understand the architectural issues
first, and make sure any changes introduced to MIP are consistent with the
Internet architecture. So the issue is broader than just the MIP group.

            jak

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

---

From: Thomas Noel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:04:10 +0100

James, Basavaraj, All,

> transport, or perhaps there is some other way that is architecturally

There was in the past several propositions to solve these issues (VIP, 
LIN6, LAR, GSE, etc.). Several obsoleted drafts describe solutions for 
these problems.

Just to clarify our position, we do not propose to use MIP to solve all 
issues of multilink flows.

We think that a lot of work has been done in MobileIP WG to standardize 
MIPv6 specifications. And now, we must use these basic specifications to 
support new features.

Basavaraj, I am sorry but I do not believe that multi-interfaces on a 
mobile node is only a research problem. There are several commercial 
mobile nodes with at least 2 interfaces, and we need to address this 
topic. It seemed to me that the good WG was the MIP6 WG ?

Thomas

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 05:39:14 +0900

Hi James

At Mon, 3 Nov 2003 09:35:33 -0800,
> want, then we can do that for the next IETF in Seoul.

I will attend the bar BOF.
It's better to limit the scope of discussion to only _mobile_
(i.e. MIP6 or NEMO). Otherwise, it is going to be endless and we'll get drunk.

> Internet architecture. So the issue is broader than just the MIP group.

Agree that we can not ignore the existing proposal, but there is an
effort to summarize the problem of multihoming on MIP6.
draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-00.txt should not be
ignored, either.

I wonder if we could kick off the discussion based on the problem
statement at the bar bof.

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 23:30:22 +0200 (EET)

(Tailed down Cc: list)

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Thomas Noel wrote:
[...]
> topic. It seemed to me that the good WG was the MIP6 WG ?

Could someone clarify what does this have to do with 2 interfaces?

Aren't all the MIPv6-specific issues identical is two different addresses
(e.g., from different ISPs)  are configured on one interface?

This would seem to suggest that we don't understand the problem (or have 
failed to describe it) to begin with..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:49:50 -0800

Thomas,

> topic. It seemed to me that the good WG was the MIP6 WG ?

Who said it was a research problem? My point was that it is an architectural
problem, regardless of whether any commercial products have multiple
interfaces or not.

A bit of history may be instructive. The IESG instructed the SCTP group to
remove multilink flows from the SCTP RFC because the architectural impact
was not understood. Now if you, Nicolas, Thierry and everybody else who is
pushing for multilink support in Mobile IP want to see it happen, it might
be prudent to show some understanding of the architectural impact,
otherwise, anything you come up with (including a proposal to put it into
the MIP6 charter) may suffer the same fate.

In other words (to be fairly blunt since the subtle approach does not seem
to be succeeding), I am trying to help you maximize your chances of getting
this work accepted by the IESG.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:58:05 -0800

> statement at the bar bof.

Raj has indicated interest in discussing the problem statement at the MIP6
meeting, and I would certainly welcome that, as I've mentioned previously.
It is on my reading list.

For the bar BOF, my objective is to focus on architectural issues with
multilink flows, in an attempt to get clarification re. the aformentioned
problem with general understanding esp. from the IESG. Mobile devices are
naturally high on the list as an application, but any proposal to do
multilink flows will raise the question for fixed devices as well.

            jak

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:10:24 +0900

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:58:05 -0800

> multilink flows will raise the question for fixed devices as well.

Hi James,

I 100% agree that the issue applies to fixed devices as well. A good
example is fixed nodes (LFNs) in a mobile network. 

As of today I don't know how to deal with a topic that covers work being
done in various working groups (MIP6, NEMO, ...), but I guess a starting
point is to evaluate in each WG what are the issues that belong to the
given WG, and what are those that are common to others.

Thierry

---

From: Thomas Noel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:42:17 +0100

James,

> Who said it was a research problem?

See below a previous email in the ML

 >>I am aware of the various drafts addressing this. But I do not see why
 >>this is a critical need for the WG to take on at this time. I do not
 >>for example see a large number of people in the WG demanding that this
 >>be a work item because it is absolutely a MUST for mobile IPv6 to be
 >>deployed. What you are cooking in your lab may be interesting but is
 >>not necessarily needed by the industry at this time

> My point was that it is an architectural

Agree

> the MIP6 charter) may suffer the same fate.

Totally agree, for this reason we push to discuss this topic at the next 
IETF. And once more, we would like to discuss the problem statement 
before solutions.
> this work accepted by the IESG.

Thanks

Thomas