Subject: [nemo] Preparing NEMO Slot for Vancouver

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:26:24 +0900

Dear all,

The NEMO WG will meet at Vancouver for a 2 hours session.

In Paris, we mentioned about rechartering the WG, so I think this will
be one of the important discussion: how are we 

So, the main topics will be:
1. status of WG documents
2. RO PB Statement
3. RO issues we should work on, and where
4. Multihoming: what issues we should work on, and where
5. Rechartering (mainly based on point 3 & 4)

If you intend to obtain a slot to discuss one of the above topics
(particularly the status of WG doc) or other topics please send your
request to TJ and myself, indicating:- name of speaker
- title of presentation
- associated draft (if any, and preferably)
- length
- purpose
- what is the relation with current NEMO activities

Please send your requests by Oct 28th. Requests will be honored based
on:
- relevance with the priorities of the WG
- active discussion on the mailing list

TJ & Thierry

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:17:00 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:

>> request to TJ and myself, indicating:- name of speaker - title of
>> presentation - associated draft (if any, and preferably) - length -
>> purpose - what is the relation with current NEMO activities

Hello, we'd like to request a 10min slot for presenting IPv4 NEMO.

name of speaker: either Alex Petrescu or Kent Leung
title:           NEMO Basic Support for IPv4
assc'd draft:    draft-leung-nemov4-base-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leung-nemov4-base-00.txt
length:          10min
purpose:         Present Mobile IPv4 extensions to support
                 IPv4 Mobile Routers.
relation with
NEMO activities: the draft is just about basic support for NEMO (direct
                 relationship with Network Mobility).

Alex

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:54:34 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> two questions:
 - I believe that Mobile IPv4 already includes support for mobile routers
   (this is what is written in the specs and in my Mobility books)
 - is IPv4 in the scope? (I've just look at the charter: it is)

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:12:00 -0700

>  - is IPv4 in the scope? (I've just look at the charter: it is)

Yes, IPv4 was explicitly included, since there was interest shown,  
back when the charter was written, to work on a v4 version of the  
spec. We purposefully started out the basic support spec in a manner  
so it should be easy to port to v4, though that's not what ended up  
happening. In fact, nothing really happened since then, till now.  
Which is good timing for the authors of this draft, since we are in  
the middle of rewriting the charter.

It remains to be seen what the interest level of the overall working  
group is for creating a v4 solution and the associated documents that  
would be necessary, and that's what we need to discuss on this list  
(and in the IETF meeting, if the topic appears on the agenda). The  
key components, in my personal view, would be a core group of some  
people willing to work on all of the documents, and the consensus of  
the WG (and ADs, etc) that it's something that we want to keep in the  
charter and it's proceeding in a reasonable way.

TJ

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:00:38 +0200

Francis Dupont wrote:
> => two questions: - I believe that Mobile IPv4 already includes
> support for mobile routers (this is what is written in the specs and
> in my Mobility books)

Right, the 3344 (Mobile IPv4) gives principles, scenarios and some
mechanisms for Mobile Routers support.  However it lacks means to encode
transportation of MNPs in the Registration Requests which led to some
implementors encode that in some unspecified way.  Which is why we try
to propose a common behaviour.

> - is IPv4 in the scope? (I've just look at the charter: it is)

Right, in addition to IPv4 being in the Charter, the mip6trans DT
looking at running NEMOv6 over a v4 access network has recently
discussed giving also v4 access to MNNs, when connected to a v4 access
network.  Which is a natural application for NEMOv4.

Do you think IPv4 would not be in scope?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:01:49 +0200

> 5. Rechartering (mainly based on point 3 & 4)

Thierry, just a question.  I agree with most points in the agenda.

Isn't the 4th topic dealt with in Monami6 WG?  I mean, we already had
extensive discussion slots at several NEMO meetings about what are the
multi-homing issues and where should they be worked on.  And then there
was Monami6 BoF, and now Monami6 is created so they should logically be
worked there, no?

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:31:44 +0900

Thanks Alex for rising this up !

> > In Paris, we mentioned about rechartering the WG, so I think this
> > will be one of the important discussion: how are we 
> > 
 
> multi-homing issues and where should they be worked on.  And then
> there was Monami6 BoF, and now Monami6 is created so they should
> logically be worked there, no?

We still didn't come to a conclusion about which of the issues should be
dealt with in each WG. The corresponding text (i.e. suggestion by draft
authors) has been clarified in the new version (not announced yet,
but it's available from 
http://www.nautilus6.org/doc/drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-04.txt
http://www.nautilus6.org/doc/drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-04.html
See Figure 10: Matrix of NEMO Multihoming Issues 
)

We need this discussion to happen now before the meeting in order to
conclude in Vancouver. 

So, Monami6 has not been chartered to solve these issues, besides the
multiple CoA registration. This means that most of the issues are
WG-orphan. If the issues are important to be solved, and can be solved
in a reasonable way, we should discuss which WG should take care of
them, and go in these WGs to make them consider these new topics. We do
think that some should be dealt with Monami6.

Can we start the debate on this so that ChanWah doesn't have the
impression to repeat himself in Vancouver ?

Thanks,
Thierry.

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:45:15 +0800

Hello Alex,

> was Monami6 BoF, and now Monami6 is created so they should logically be

In the upcoming -04 [*] of draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues, I have
clearly recommended which issues to be worked on by which WG.  There are
two points of considerations for the NEMO WG.  I would definitely like
to use the slot in Vancouver to clear this two points.

/rgds
/cwng

[*] Submitted on 24th, still in I-D secretariat's queue.  Those
impatient, can get it at 
http://www.psl.com.sg/Internet-Drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-04.txt

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:04:08 +0300

>We need this discussion to happen now before the meeting in order to
Good!

>think that some should be dealt with Monami6.
Hopefully the first step is to decide what issues we
really need to solve now. Or has that already been
decided?

--Jari

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:42:41 +0200

Chan-Wah Ng wrote:

>>> So, the main topics will be: 1. status of WG documents 2. RO PB
>>> Statement 3. RO issues we should work on, and where 4.
>>> Multihoming: what issues we should work on, and where 5.
>>> Rechartering (mainly based on point 3 & 4)
>> 
>> Isn't the 4th topic dealt with in Monami6 WG?  I mean, we already
>> had extensive discussion slots at several NEMO meetings about what
>> are the multi-homing issues and where should they be worked on.
>> And then there was Monami6 BoF, and now Monami6 is created so they
>> should logically be worked there, no?
>> 
> 
> 
>  clearly recommended which issues to be worked on by which WG.  There
> are two points of considerations for the NEMO WG.

Well, I read the draft's recommendation as three not two NEMO topics:
-(multiple) HA ingress filtering for (n,n,n).
-review prefix delegation.
-loop prevention.

Which are the two?

Alex

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:03:23 +0800

> -review prefix delegation.

Sorry, it should be the first and last.  The review prefix delegation
part is a obviously-must-be-done.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:16:11 +0200

> part is a obviously-must-be-done.

Ok, so the draft recommends working on the NEMO issues related to (1)
multiple HA ingress filtering each other's prefixes and (2) loop prevention.

Could I address the 2nd: loop prevention.

First, it does not look like a 'multi-homing' topic: it's about multiple
MRs non necessarily with multiple interfaces and not necessarily with
multiple HAs.

Is this correct?

Alex

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:42:36 +0800

> Could I address the 2nd: loop prevention.

Of-course, very much welcomed.

> MRs non necessarily with multiple interfaces and not necessarily with

Correct.  It is strictly speaking possible with a non-multihomed NEMO,
given sufficient number of nestings.

However, with every additional interface a mobile router has, the
probability of loop forming will be increased.  And there is a danger
when someone design a loop prevention algorithm without "multihoming
NEMO" in mind:

A router would typically have a global IPv6 address configured on each
interface.  Thus multihomed NEMO-Link would likely have MR or MRs having
multiple global IPv6 addresses.  Without consideration to multihoming, a
loop prevention algorithm (such as one that tries to generate a spanning
tree) is likely to use the global address of a MR as a node of the
spanning tree.  This may run into a danger that two distinct nodes on
the spanning tree may well be physically linked into a single node (thus
the tree is in fact a mesh, with non-zero probability of a loop
forming).

That is the reason why this issue is documented in the draft.

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:44:25 +0200

Chan-Wah Ng wrote:

>>>>> In the upcoming -04 [*] of 
>>>>> draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues, I have clearly 
>>>>> recommended which issues to be worked on by which WG.  There
>>>> Well, I read the draft's recommendation as three not two NEMO 
>>>> topics: -(multiple) HA ingress filtering for (n,n,n). -review 
>>>> prefix delegation. -loop prevention.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sorry, it should be the first and last.  The review prefix 
>>> delegation part is a obviously-must-be-done.
>> 
>> Ok, so the draft recommends working on the NEMO issues related to 
>> (1) multiple HA ingress filtering each other's prefixes and (2) 
>> loop prevention.
>> 
>> First, it does not look like a 'multi-homing' topic: it's about 
>> multiple MRs non necessarily with multiple interfaces and not 
>> necessarily with multiple HAs.
>> 
>> Is this correct?
> 
> 
> Correct.  It is strictly speaking possible with a non-multihomed 
> NEMO, given sufficient number of nestings.
> 
> A router would typically have a global IPv6 address configured on 
> each interface.  Thus multihomed NEMO-Link would likely have MR or 
> MRs having multiple global IPv6 addresses.  Without consideration to 
> multihoming, a loop prevention algorithm (such as one that tries to 
> generate a spanning tree) is likely to use the global address of a MR
>  as a node of the spanning tree.

Well, routing protocols that use spanning-tree algorithms do take into
account each interface having its own global address and all works fine.

> This may run into a danger that two distinct nodes on the spanning 
> tree may well be physically linked into a single node (thus the tree 
> is in fact a mesh, with non-zero probability of a loop forming).

This may indeed become an issue.

> That is the reason why this issue is documented in the draft.

Thanks, so at this point one may wonder whether this is an issue that is
urgent to be worked on now.  Could we discuss whether some experiment
revealed a loop in practice.  Could we discuss about some external
non-NEMO people complaining about the loop problem.

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:41:43 +0900

Hi,

> > are the multi-homing issues and where should they be worked on.  And
> > then there was Monami6 BoF, and now Monami6 is created so they
> are two points of considerations for the NEMO WG.  I would definitely
> like to use the slot in Vancouver to clear this two points.

We also need to clear the other points: we cannot just say, well, this
is a task for IPv6, or a task for DNA, or a task for monami6 and doing
nothing. So,
1. do we think as a WG that the issue is important enough to be solved ?
2. if yes, where ?
3. if "where" is identified, we need to rise the discussion in the given
WG which will decide if it's solvable in a reasonable amount of time and
possibly add a new item.

=> but it's our responsability as the NEMO WG members to push for the
relevant discussion to happen on the designed WGs.

Thierrry

-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD
WIDE, Jun Murai Lab., Keio University, Japan
Nautilus6 Chair: http://www.nautilus6.org
Web: http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/
T:+81-44-580-1600 F:+81-44-580-1437
--

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:30:41 +0200

> 1. do we think as a WG that the issue is important enough to be solved ?

Could a NEMO Chair just ask a Monami6 Chair to deal with HAHA within its
scope, and publicly discuss adoption within the Monami6 group?

> WG which will decide if it's solvable in a reasonable amount of time and

Could you please raise the HAHA discussion on Monami6, I agree with
that.  In this way probably more slots will be available during the NEMO
meeting for other-than-HAHA discussions?  HAHA discussions and
presentations on NEMO happened twice (Washington and San Diego).  If it
still appears in the Vancouver agenda it should be relatively short I
believe.

> relevant discussion to happen on the designed WGs.

Thierry, is this with the NEMO Chair hat on or as a NEMO WG member?  If
you believe that NEMO responsability is to do something then, as a Chair
you have the maximum responsibility, please do it.

If on the other hand the NEMO WG believes HAHA is local NEMO scope, then
let's just ask that prior to the meeting: there have already been two
meetings with HAHA slots.

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:12:35 +0900

Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >And>>then there was Monami6 BoF, and now Monami6 is created so they
> >>In the upcoming -04 [*] of draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues, I
> >have>clearly recommended which issues to be worked on by which WG. 
> >There>are two points of considerations for the NEMO WG.  I would
> >definitely>like to use the slot in Vancouver to clear this two
> >points.
> > 
> > 
> > We also need to clear the other points: we cannot just say, well,
> > this is a task for IPv6, or a task for DNA, or a task for monami6
> > and doing nothing. So,
> Could a NEMO Chair just ask a Monami6 Chair to deal with HAHA within
> its scope, and publicly discuss adoption within the Monami6 group?

I think I could do that ;-)
But, as a NEMO chair, I need to make sure it's a consensus of the NEMO
WG that:
1. Monami6 is the best place, according to the NEMO WG
2. The NEMO WG is not willing to work on the topic in the NEMO WG (for
some reasons, like rechartering, and above all work efficiency and
complementarity)

So, if we can discuss now on NEMO ML if we think a solution like HAHA
must be standardized, and that this should be done in Monami6, may be we
can discuss this point in Vancouver (in the NEMO WG or MONAMI6 or both
depending on the progress of the discussion).

> > 2. if yes, where ?
> > 3. if "where" is identified, we need to rise the discussion in the
> > given WG which will decide if it's solvable in a reasonable amount
> > of time and possibly add a new item.
> 
> Could you please raise the HAHA discussion on Monami6, 
See my comment above.

> I agree with
> that.  In this way probably more slots will be available during the
> NEMO meeting for other-than-HAHA discussions?  HAHA discussions and
> presentations on NEMO happened twice (Washington and San Diego).  If
> it still appears in the Vancouver agenda it should be relatively short
> I believe.

Agree it should be short, in the meeting. So, we have 1 week to drive a
WG consensus on this point on the ML.

> > => but it's our responsability as the NEMO WG members to push for
> > the relevant discussion to happen on the designed WGs.
> 
> Thierry, is this with the NEMO Chair hat on or as a NEMO WG member? 
> If you believe that NEMO responsability is to do something then, as a
> Chair you have the maximum responsibility, please do it.

I would say it's a personal message with a NEMO chair profiled hat, but
I didn't sync with TJ, so this may not be a "NEMO chairs" view.

To answer your question, responsability of chairs is to make this
discussion happen and to drive the conclusions, possibly report the
conclusion to other chairs or IESG. But it's not the chair
responsability to decide. It's the WG's. And, for this, we need the
discussion to be happening on NEMO ML right now. (actually, we need to
discuss the entire process or rechartering NEMO, I guess TJ and me need
to initiate this debate on a separate thread)

> If on the other hand the NEMO WG believes HAHA is local NEMO scope,
> then let's just ask that prior to the meeting: there have already been
> two meetings with HAHA slots.

My personal feeling is that it''s both MIP6 and NEMO scope, and could
address some of the multihoming concerns (though I know motivations come
from a RO point of view), so Monami6 would be a good place. Just my
point of view. I would like to conclude what is the NEMO WG point of
view.

Alex, what's yours ? 

Thierry

---

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:02:39 +0800

Hello NEMO Chairs,

on behalf of the co-authors, I would like to request the following
slots:

-----

(1) Title: 
	NEMO Multihoming Issues Status Update
    Speaker:
	One of the authors (Thierry, Eun-Kyoung, Marcelo, or myself)
    Length: 
	~ 15 mins
    Draft: 
	draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-04.txt
    Purpose:
	(a) Status Update on the daft
	(b) WG consensus on the recommendations by the draft
    Relevance: 
	Its is WG draft.

-----

(2) Title: 
	NEMO Route Optimization Drafts Update
    Length: 
	~ 15 mins
    Speaker:
	One of the authors (Watari-san, Pascal, or myself)
    Draft: 
	draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement-01.txt
	draft-ietf-nemo-ro-space-analysis-01.txt
    Purpose:
	(a) Status Update on the drafts
	(b) Brief description on RO-SA, since this is the first
	 presentation for the draft
    Relevance: 
	They are WG drafts

-----

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:37:26 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> But, as a NEMO chair, I need to make sure it's a consensus of the 
> NEMO WG that: 1. Monami6 is the best place, according to the NEMO WG
>  2. The NEMO WG is not willing to work on the topic in the NEMO WG 
> (for some reasons, like rechartering, and above all work efficiency 
> and complementarity)

I personally am not willing to work on HAHA types of protocols, not at
this time, for reasons of reachartering and work efficiency.

>  must be standardized, and that this should be done in Monami6, may 
> be we can discuss this point in Vancouver

Yes, best starting discuss now; but we've already said that.  Why don't
we start with authors giving their oppinion about what their intentions
are with respect to which WG?  Or some technical advantage of HAHA for NEMO?

> (in the NEMO WG or MONAMI6 or both depending on the progress of the 
> discussion).

It would be nice if we could avoid same topic presented in several
meetings.  And it's already been presented here.

>>> 2. if yes, where ? 3. if "where" is identified, we need to rise 
>>> the discussion in the given WG which will decide if it's solvable
>>>  in a reasonable amount of time and possibly add a new item.

IMHO - not in NEMO, not now in NEMO.

>> I agree with that.  In this way probably more slots will be 
>> available during the NEMO meeting for other-than-HAHA discussions? 
>> HAHA discussions and presentations on NEMO happened twice 
>> (Washington and San Diego).  If it still appears in the Vancouver 
>> agenda it should be relatively short I believe.
> 
> Agree it should be short, in the meeting. So, we have 1 week to drive
>  a WG consensus on this point on the ML.

I said _if_ it still appears...

>>  If you believe that NEMO responsability is to do something then, 
>> as a Chair you have the maximum responsibility, please do it.
> 
> 
> I would say it's a personal message with a NEMO chair profiled hat, 
> but I didn't sync with TJ, so this may not be a "NEMO chairs" view.
> 
> discussion to be happening on NEMO ML right now. (actually, we need 
> to discuss the entire process or rechartering NEMO, I guess TJ and me
>  need to initiate this debate on a separate thread)

Right.

Until Charter discussion starts, do you want me to send message to
Monami6 about HAHA?

If I start reviewing the HAHA documents posting on Monami6 do you think
I raise any chance that other people will review documents I'm currently
interested in (FMIP, RO, v4 traversal and v4 in general)?

Alex