Subject: [Mip6] Monami6 mailing list: MObile Nodes And Multiple Interfaces in IPv6

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:35:18 +0900

Dear all,

This is a announcement and motivations to join the Monami6 mailiing
list: http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf/

In several occasions, the issue of supporting and using multiple
interfaces **simulateneously** on mobile nodes operating MIP6 (or NEMO
BS) were discussed on this ML and other places. There are several
solutions, each addressing a different part of the entire problem. There
were some attempts to include a milestone in the MIP6 charter to work on
that topic, but this was rejected, for several reasons including:

- no time to deal with this topic [agree a given WG has limited time]
- some claiming it's not necessary [huh ?]
- topic is too broad to be covered by MIP6 WG [agree]
- should be done at IRTF [huh ?]
- and other.

Basically, MIP (and NEMO Basic Support) would be affected by small
straight forward changes (multiple CoA registration for instance),
whereas additional non-MIP-specific mechanisms would be needed to
benefit from the multihomed configurations of MNs.

It is doubful, given the past resistance in this MIP6 WG that MIP6 would
be the right working group, all the more since some of the idenfified
issues are not MIP6 issues per se (however, it is a common understanding
of the people working on these issues that MIP6 and NEMO deployment
would most benefit of such extensions, this driving us to focus on
IP-layer mobility protocols).

We are therefore envisioning the creation of a new working group and we
are engaged into the set up of a BOF at next IETF meeting in Paris. The
potential-&-to-be-approved BOF would be called Monami6 (MObile Nodes And
Multiple Interfaces in IPv6). If you are interested, please do join our
IETF  mailing list from the web page http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf/
where our objectives are explained and relevant documents are listed.

If you lack background:

Problem statement drafts:
1. Goals and Benefits of Multihoming
   draft-ernst-generic-goals-and-benefits-01.txt
2. Analysis of Multihoming in Network Mobility Support 
   draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt
3. Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6 
   draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-04.txt 

There were some discussions about this topic on
the MIP6 ML quite frequently, including in the following threads (see
MIP6 archives):
- Sep.03: Are multihoming mechanisms part of the charter 
- Oct.03: Draft Agenda for WG meeting at IETF58
- Nov.03: multi-interfaced vs multi-addressed [Re: [Mip6] Draft Agenda
  for WG meeting at IETF58]
- Dec.04: FW: MIP6 agenda (Final)

And discussions during IETF meetings:
- Nov.03: MIP6 WG, 58th IETF meeting
- Nov.03: Multi-link flow Bar BOF (somewhat related)
- Dec.04: MIP6 WG, 61th IETF meeting

Regards,
Thierry.

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 08:24:19 -0700

Thierry,

I'm certainly interested in this and, in the past, I've organized a bar BOF
on multiple host registrations, though the primary interest at that point
seemed to be for Mobile IPv4. Nothing came out of it, though, since nobody
seemed to want to really work on the problem (as opposed to talking about
it). I'm glad to see that's changed.

But I did not sense any hostility to working on this problem (more lack of
committment even though there was interest) in the MIP6 WG, and I believe
that would, in fact, be a good venue to do the work. I think MIP6 is
approaching completion of existing charter items and might possibly consider
a charter update. Or perhaps your concern is that the work spans multihomed
mobile network and multihomed hosts, and therefore spans the charters of the
two WGs? I might point out that the MIP IPv4/IPv6 transition team is
currently being hosted by the MIP6 WG but is also working to accommodate
mobile networks? Perhaps the load could be split and the topic of multihomed
hosts and networks could be hosted by NEMO?

I don't want to discourage the initiative to have a BOF in Paris, but just
bring up a couple of additional possibilities for consideration. Good
working group chairs are a scarce resource in IETF, and the fewer WGs the
IESG has to keep track of the higher the probability that they will be able
to achieve better management.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thierry Ernst" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 10:35 PM
Subject: [Mip6] Monami6 mailing list: MObile Nodes And Multiple Interfacesin
IPv6

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:13:54 -0700

Nicolas,

> About introducing this work in MIP6 WG, we tried to present our drafts
> and introduce this subject one year ago, without real success (we have
> been allocated one slot to discuss draft-montavont, that's hit). Maybe
> things have changed since then.
>

Did you try in NEMO as well?

The MIP6 WG has this in its charter:

    The primary goal of the MIP6 working group will be to enhance base
    IPv6 mobility by continuing work on developments that are required for
    wide-scale deployments.

I think one could argue that the ability to handle multihomed hosts, given
the emergence of multiinterface mobile devices within the last two years
since the charter was written, falls into this category. In addition,
there's this item:

   - Support for a Mobile Node changing its home address, either
      because of renumbering in its home network or because it
      periodically changes addresses (perhaps via RFC3041)

One could argue that the ability to have more than one RFC 3041 privacy home
address at a time, and not merely the ability to change the home address
periodically, could also be useful even in a single interface device.

> Again, I think having a BOF could give us the opportunity to identify
> the need of a new WG, or how to introduce this standardization into any
> existing WG.
>

Sure, I think it is worthwhile having a BOF to discuss the technical issues,
even if the work ends up in either NEMO or MIP6. Ultimately, its up to the
IESG to decide how to manage getting the work done. The primary questions
are whether there are people who are willing to do the work, what the
problem is, and what the technical issues are in solving it.

            jak

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:04:48 +0900

Hi James, everyone,

About having a BOF vs speak about this in the MIP6 WG, I think it's
pretty obvious for everyone that we need enough time slot to deal with
the issue of multihomed mobile nodes and routers. I doubt any of MIP6 or
NEMO WG would allocate enough time, and since the topics spans both WGs,
a BOF is full of sense. I think James doesn't argue having a BOF, but
only argue about creating a WG. 

So we want to request a BOF (which may end up either in a new
WG - I think it would be better, and necessary; or in a new item in MIP6
or NEMO).  I think we should discuss the purpose of the BOF and the
intended output on the Monami6 ML from now on: please visit
http://www.nautilis6.org/ietf for registering.

> >>About introducing this work in MIP6 WG, we tried to present our
> >drafts>and introduce this subject one year ago, without real success
> >(we have>been allocated one slot to discuss draft-montavont, that's
> >hit). Maybe>things have changed since then.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >

Well, we have some activity there, but this issue is not specific to
NEMO, so let's not mix things. I think it's better to let the NEMO WG
advance it's own work.

> Actually, it seems hard at this point of time to ask NEMO WG to focus
> on multihoming of both single MNs and MRs / mobile networks. I think
> NEMO WG is now beginning to investigate route optimization and
> security issues. Maybe I should let Thierry answers this question.

Well, we have to complete the prefix delegation work and the RO
analysis (plus polish the other documents, including the analysis of
multihoming in NEMO). Then, the WG should better close down, or work on
a RO solution is the RO analysis concludes we should.

In anycase, NEMO should focus on NEMO-specific work. Any work that spans
both MH or MR should be in an independent WG. My vision is rather to
close down MIP6 and NEMO as soon as possible, and create new WGs that
should at once consider solutions for both MHs and MRs.

About the IPv4/IPv6 transition team, this work is hosted by both the
NEMO and MIP6 WGs. But this is a very specific point. Working on
multihomed mobile hosts and routers is broader than the transition
activity, and IMHO deserves a dedicated WG to the contrary of the
transition work.

> >    The primary goal of the MIP6 working group will be to enhance
> >    base IPv6 mobility by continuing work on developments that are
> >    required for wide-scale deployments.
> >
> >I think one could argue that the ability to handle multihomed hosts,
> >given the emergence of multiinterface mobile devices within the last
> >two years since the charter was written, falls into this category. In
> >addition, there's this item:
> >  
> >
> Definitly. I think one deployment issue of MIP6 in large scale will be
> the multihoming support, and how well MIP6 is able to handle
> multihoming features.
> 
> >One could argue that the ability to have more than one RFC 3041
> >privacy home address at a time, and not merely the ability to change
> >the home address periodically, could also be useful even in a single
> >interface device.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Again, I think having a BOF could give us the opportunity to
> >identify>the need of a new WG, or how to introduce this
> >standardization into any>existing WG.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Sure, I think it is worthwhile having a BOF to discuss the technical
> >issues, even if the work ends up in either NEMO or MIP6. Ultimately,
> >its up to the IESG to decide how to manage getting the work done. The
> >primary questions are whether there are people who are willing to do
> >the work, what the problem is, and what the technical issues are in
> >solving it.
> >  
> >
> I am happy we agree on this point.
> If we schedule a BOF in Paris, I hope chairs of both MIP6 and NEMO can
> join in order to discuss the better place to do this work

Thierry.

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:42:43 -0400

Hi James,

Thank you for expressing your valuable thoughts on the Monami6 BOF.
I think one of the purpose of the BOF is to gather interested people to 
discuss the value to have a dedicated WG to treat Multihoming on nodes 
operating MIP6 and NEMO. It would be good to have a slot time long 
enough to focus on that goal, and to determine how to do this work. And 
I think this work should not be sparse into several WGs.

Nicolas

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:35:57 -0400

>Did you try in NEMO as well?
Actually, it seems hard at this point of time to ask NEMO WG to focus on 
multihoming of both single MNs and MRs / mobile networks. I think NEMO 
WG is now beginning to investigate route optimization and security 
issues. Maybe I should let Thierry answers this question.

Definitly. I think one deployment issue of MIP6 in large scale will be 
the multihoming support, and how well MIP6 is able to handle multihoming 
features.

Nicolas

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:04:42 -0700

hi Thierry,

thanks for your efforts on this. I definitely support this work
and see it as something that definitely enhances MIPv6 and NEMO
protocols. I also think that this work should be done ASAP.

doing the work in a separate WG is fine with me.

but I prefer just doing this in the MIP6 WG. a new WG approval
takes much longer. I would support modifying the MIP6 charter
to include this work. I think the current problem statement draft
you have is clear enough to start work on the solution right
away.

Vijay

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:24:31 +0900

Hi Vijay,

Thanks for supporting the need for such features.

In any case we will ask a BOF because we need time, and I still believe
a new independant group is the best as working on this issue is not just
about standardizing e.g. multiple CoA but multiple CoA and other
mechanisms. Also, since it spans MIP6 and NEMO BS, and should be applied
to HMIPv6 and FMIPv6, I think the working on it in the MIP6 WG is
missleading.

About time to create a new WG, if approved, it could be done by 64th
IETF; in the meantime people on the monami6 list can make good progress.
But let's don't argue this point at this time, and let's concentrate on
having a good BOF where all that have to be said will be said
thoroughly.

Official position of the MIP6 chairs on this matter would also be
appreciated.

Thierry

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:45:25 -0700

okay. we can discuss this more at the BOF.

Vijay