Subject: [Monami6] timeslot at IETF68

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 07:49:07 +0100

Dear all,

We have reserved a 2 hours slot at the next IETF.
In order to prepare the Monami6 agenda for IETF 68, if you want to  
present your work, can you please send us an email with the following  
details :

1. I-D name
2. How does it fit in the scope of the Monami6 charter
3. Time requested

Regards,
Nicolas

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:49:13 +0900

Hi Nicolas,

On 2007/03/02, at 15:49, Nicolas Montavont wrote:

> present your work, can you please send us an email with the  
> following details :
>
> 1. I-D name
draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-02.txt
> 2. How does it fit in the scope of the Monami6 charter
WG document
> 3. Time requested
15-20min

thanks
ryuji

---

From: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:05:29 +0100

Hi Nicolas

We have implemented the "darft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03.txt" by
extending NEPL with mcoa software. We would like to  request a slot to
discuss implementation issues and some perfromance tests that we have
done. Could you please give us 5/10 min time slot for this?

If we get this timeslot, this will be presented by Umar Toseef.

Kind regards

Koojana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas Montavont [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 02 March 2007 07:49
> To: Monami6 WG
> Subject: [Monami6] timeslot at IETF68
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> following

---

From: "Benjamin Lim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 18:54:02 +0800

Hi Nicolas,

I would like to request a 5/10 mins time slot for presenting a summary on
the issue that was highlighted in the mailing list regarding the MNNs being
unable to set preferences for flows even when a MNN is attached to a
multihomed mobile network. 

Regards,
Benjamin Lim

> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:49 PM
> To: Monami6 WG

---

From: "Hesham Soliman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 00:17:36 +1100

Is there a draft to read? 

Hesham 

 > From: Benjamin Lim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
 > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:54 PM
 > To: 'Monami6 WG'
 > Subject: RE: [Monami6] timeslot at IETF68
 > 
 > Hi Nicolas,
 >

---

From: "Benjamin Lim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:00:13 +0800

Hi,

This issue was raised because of its high relevance to Monami6. Therefore, a
presentation slot was requested for. Based on the response, if sufficient
interest arise, a draft can be produced.

Regards,
Benjamin Lim

> From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:18 PM
> To: [email-masked]; 'Monami6 WG'

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:50:23 +0100

Hi Benjamin,

Usually it's the other way round. In order for people to prepare for
the discussion, a draft is useful, and it's too late now to produce a
new one. So, is there a draft to read, if no draft, a report or
something ?

PS: I personaly consider this an important feature, but it is debatable
if Monami6 is the right group. But this is needed for Monami6's
solutions deployment.

Regards,
Thierry

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:00:13 +0800

-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD 
INRIA Rocquencourt France Project-Team IMARA / JRU LARA
http://www.lara.prd.fr +33 1 39 63 59 30 (office)

---

From: "Benjamin Lim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:00:23 +0800

Hi,

[snip]
> something ? [/snip]

Currently, no documentation is available for the WG. The motivation for such
presentation is there exist  use case in which a multihomed host requires
additional help in order to perform the flow filtering when attached to a
multihomed router.

The following can be used by the audience to get some information on what
will be presented.

Consider the following scenario (as mentioned by Heikki)

                                              +------+
                     3G Cellular       |         |
                                  /--------|  I      |     +----------+
                  CoA-3G /             |  N    |----| HA-MR |
         +----+     +----+             |  T    |     +----------+
         | MN |----| MR |            |  E     |
         +----+     +----+             |  R    |     +----------+
            CoA-WLAN \             |  N   |----| HA-MN |
                                   \--------|  E    |      +---------+
                         802.11g         |  T    |
                                              +-----+

Here, the Mobile Router, MR, has two different egress interfaces: a 3G
cellular interface with a Care-of Address of CoA-3G, and a 802.11g interface
with a Care-of Address of CoA-WLAN.  A Visiting Mobile Node, MN, is
currently attached to the mobile network of MR.  HA-MR is the home agent of
MR and HA-MN is the home agent of MN.

"Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6" (draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-02) aims
to bind flows by introducing a new option, known as Flow Identification
option, in the Binding Update and Binding Acknowledgement messages.  With
this, a Mobile Node can bind one flow to an interface while maintaining the
reception of other flows on another interface.  Flow bindings would
therefore be useful in cases where the Mobile Node is connected to different
access technologies with different characteristics.

However, when we apply the flow filtering mechanism stated in Monami6 to
NEMO, the fact that the tunnel ends at the Mobile Router whereas the traffic
ends at Mobile Network Node cause problem with flow filtering.  On one hand,
while the Mobile Router has multiple egress paths, it cannot perform
efficient flow filtering since the Mobile Router has no way to know the
traffic requirements of Mobile Network Node's flows.  On the other hand, the
Mobile Network Node has no way of knowing the existence of multiple paths
(and their network characteristics) to start flow filtering.

Thierry mentioned in the ML that this issue is also being worked out by the
automotive industry, within ISO TC204 WG16 (using SNMPv3). The solution is
part of the CALM standard which is supposed to be deployed in vehicles for
ITS applications. They do not necessarily need an IETF standard, and don't
even try, though they do reuse some of the existing standards like NEMO
Basic Support, etc.

Furthermore, Alex highlighted that the NEMO WG is rechartering to identify
requirements for Route Optimization.  One possible requirement may be that
MR sends to VMN what are the subnets to which it connects.  At that point
the flow bindings should be established by VMN somehow. This may be a
solution to the problem in which VMN knows nothing about MR decisions.

Because packets tunneling and traffic session terminate at different nodes
in a mobile network, the flow binding mechanism currently developed by the
Monami6 WG cannot be used without modification. Thus, the purpose of the
presentation is to attempt to gather requirements to provide a suitable
solution to be adopted by the flow binding mechanism designed for Monami6.