Subject: RE: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 23:55:24 -0700

Hi Thierry,
At the risk of falling under the "v4-defenders" camp, I am not sure why
there is a problem with doing the work if there is a practical need for
it and if there are volunteers to work on the topic. When we did the
base draft, we did mention that our desire was to work on the NEMOv4
base protocol - however, there was a discussion related to what happens
if more topics come up and we had decided that we will take up those
topics as they go based on need and consensus. 

And, I completely disagree that there should be a separate WG to do any
IPv4 work - there are a lot of functional similarities between NEMOv4
and NEMOv6 and the work required for any additions to NEMOv4 base is
minimal. If there is enough interest and need for getting this work
done, it should be done here. 

The mobility space already has way too many WGs - way more than there
needs to be. If anything the IETF is doing in this space is sending a
confusing message to observers, that alone is sufficient to drive an
observer to ultimate confusion :) The fact that a WG titled "Network
Mobility" is working on IPv4 and IPv6 network mobility is hardly the
reason an observer is likely to get confused! 

Regards,
Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 1:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Just a note, I remember v4-defenders stating not so long ago 
> that they would just do something basic on V4 for NEMO, but 
> now some folks are suggesting FA support, prefix allocation, 
> etc. What is next ?
> 
> I don't personaly mind work on NEMOv4 (but I don't support 
> this), however, I do mind that the NEMO WG has a strong focus 
> on v6, and I would rather see work on v4 and v6 taking places 
> in SEPARATE working groups. Many people don't want to lose 
> their time on v4 discussions.
> 
> I really think that melting IPv4 and IPv6 in a single working 
> group is at minimum confusing, and possibly damaging the 
> message the IETF is addressing to the world (i.e. non-IETFers 
> who follow the output of the IETF, but not the internal discussions). 
> 
> The only exception I see to this if v4-v6 interoperability 
> issues, if any. 
> 
> PS:  I was unable to participate to the IETF and the 
> discussions on IETF mailing lists since mid-March until now 
> (back to normal mode now, I hope), so there are a lot of 
> important discussions in which I couldn't participate. I 
> still need to dig back into the discussions to see what other 
> important thread I missed.
> 
> Thierry
> 
> 
> > Tsirtsis, George wrote:
> > > In a recent discussion on the mailing list I suggested that we 
> > > should  define FA support and dynamic prefix allocation for the 
> > > NEMOv4 base solution.
> > > 
> > > A number of people at the time seemed to be supportive of 
> the idea 
> > > and I am in the process of writing a draft on the 
> subject. Could we 
> > > extend the charter to cover these issues?
> > 
> > I agree to request extending the Charter to deal with FA 
> support for 
> > NEMOv4.  Maybe that could be simply put like: "produce IPv4 NEMO 
> > protocol based on Mobile IPv4 (basic support, FA support and prefix 
> > allocation from the foreign and/or home networks)."
> > 
> > Or similar?  Just some short phrasing.
> > 
> > Alex
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> Thierry ERNST, PhD
> INRIA Rocquencourt Projet IMARA
> +33 1 39 63 59 30
> 
> 
>

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 10:53:49 +0200

Vidya, 

Some people want to concentrate on v6 work only (including me and a
couple of other who have been involved in the NEMO WG from the
beginning) and for these people there are valid reasons not to mix up
things. On the other hand, there are other people who just want to work
on NEMO without distinction between IPv4 and IPv6. There people also
have valid reasons.

I stand on the side of those people who want to work on IPv6 specific
issues. If there are good reasons to motivate a reduction in the number
of WGs, I would rather group MIP6 and NEMO together rather than NEMOv4
and NEMOv6 together. But the debate on "too many mobility WGs within the
IETF" should be discussed on the IETF general ML or the WG chairs ML,
not here.

I would like to get the opinion of more (i.e. others) people whether we
should concentrate on IPv6 or not.

Thierry.

On Thu, 4 May 2006 23:55:24 -0700

---

From: Julien Bournelle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 10:59:43 +0200

Hi all,

 I can remember that mobileip has decided to split to work more
 efficiently. So maybe it would be better to do the same thing for NEMO
 and thus to keep focus on v6.
 
 My 2 cents,

 Julien

-- 
julien.bournelle at int-evry.fr

---

From: "Eranga Perera" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 20:11:18 +1000

Even I think keeping the two separate would be much easier to follow the
issues.
Cheers,
Eranga

-----Original Message-----
From: Julien Bournelle [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 7:00 PM
To: Thierry Ernst
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.

Hi all,

 My 2 cents,

 Julien

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 12:32:20 +0200

Julien Bournelle wrote:
> efficiently. So maybe it would be better to do the same thing for 
> NEMO and thus to keep focus on v6.

Julien, splitting MIP into other WGs happened at a time when there was
only one WG about mobility, called just MIP.

Since about 3 years there are many WGs related to mobility: mip6, mip4,
mipshop, monami6, mobike, netlmm and maybe others.  Netlmm and monami6
BoFs were happening at about the same time.  Monami6 became a WG before
netlmm and there was strong discussion and questioning about the
necessity about so many mobility related WGs.

It is normal to question the high number of these WGs.  Because actual
deployment of their output compared to other WGs (e.g. vpn or pkix WG)
is really non-significant.

I think the question to be asked is whether WG thinks this v4 work is
important or not, not necessarily whether it should be done here or
there.  And when people think the v4 work is not important to
counter-exemplify with v6 deployments out there.

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:12:58 +0200

NEMOv4 could not be taken care of the MIP4 WG, so no new WG would be
needed,  but v4 and v6 work would be addressed by the most appropriate
WG.

The people supporting NEMOv4 work never considered that possibility ?

Thierry

On Fri, 05 May 2006 12:32:20 +0200

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 14:23:41 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> needed,  but v4 and v6 work would be addressed by the most 
> appropriate WG.

Do you mean "could" or "could not"?  I'm not sure.

Before the NEMO WG was even asked (and thus long before it approved) we
went both to MIP4 WG Chair and to Internet Area AD at that time (and
today we'd even go to Mobility sub-Area AD) and asked where to try this
work.  For MIP4 the Chair asked whether we've tried here; for Internet
AD we've been informally indicated towards here too.  It's natural,
whenever one says "network mobility" people think NEMO WG.

Currently, the base v4 nemo spec is WG item in this WG, as
INFORMATIONAL, with ongoing feedback on this WG.

The v4 and v6 mobility transition work is currently addressed only by
the mip6trans, which is not a WG but a DT.  They went to v6ops WG and
were directed to mobility WGs.  But there are too many WGs, so there's a
common nemo-mip6 DT.

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 14:50:55 +0200

Hi,

> Do you mean "could" or "could not"?  I'm not sure.

Typo, I meant "NEMOv4 could be taken care of the MIP4 WG".

> whenever one says "network mobility" people think NEMO WG.

That depends on the interpretation of people, and a few voices today
said that they would prefer not dealing with v4 issues.

> INFORMATIONAL, with ongoing feedback on this WG.

Hold on, at the time we accepted this work item, we (both chairs as far
as I can remember) worried that more work items would came up, and it
was decided to do this v4 spec only, and only it, and keep it as
informational so that this would not give more burden to the WG. 

So, if that was a strategic game to get more work being accepted later
once the 1st work item was done, I don't play it.

> were directed to mobility WGs.  But there are too many WGs, so there's a

Not quite. The draft you are refering to is a WG item, that belongs to
MIP6 and NEMO WGs, this is why the draft is named as
draft-ietf-mip6-nemo and listed in both WG charters.

As I said earlier in this thread, there is a difference between
transition from v4 to v6 and plain v4 work. 

Thierry.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 15:06:04 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>> NEMOv4 could not be taken care of the MIP4 WG, so no new WG would
>>>  be needed,  but v4 and v6 work would be addressed by the most 
>>> appropriate WG.

Ok.  As previously, we've tried it, we've been directed here.

>> Before the NEMO WG was even asked (and thus long before it 
>> approved) we went both to MIP4 WG Chair and to Internet Area AD at 
>> that time (and today we'd even go to Mobility sub-Area AD) and 
>> asked where to try this work.  For MIP4 the Chair asked whether 
>> we've tried here; for Internet AD we've been informally indicated 
>> towards here too.  It's natural, whenever one says "network 
>> mobility" people think NEMO WG.
> 
> Hold on, at the time we accepted this work item, we (both chairs as 
> far as I can remember) worried that more work items would came up, 
> and it was decided to do this v4 spec only, and only it, and keep it 
> as informational so that this would not give more burden to the WG.

I agree you expressed this.  Co-authors and myself didn't expect much
public feedback on NEMOv4 in NEMO.  But some of it happened.  That's why
now when you asked "what next?" I only say "whatever other people need
and agree to work on".

> So, if that was a strategic game to get more work being accepted 
> later once the 1st work item was done, I don't play it.

Thierry, this is not about secret strategies or secret agendas.  I'm all
for openness too here.  It's how things are supposed to happen in IETF.
  Somebody posts an idea, somebody else finds it good, others bad and so on.

The technical feedback on NEMOv4 came here naturally, there's no secret
plan from either side.

>> The v4 and v6 mobility transition work is currently addressed only 
>> by the mip6trans, which is not a WG but a DT.  They went to v6ops 
>> WG and were directed to mobility WGs.  But there are too many WGs, 
>> so there's a common nemo-mip6 DT.
> 
> Not quite. The draft you are refering to is a WG item, that belongs 
> to MIP6 and NEMO WGs, this is why the draft is named as 

Thierry, indeed it is a WG item, belongs to both MIP6 and NEMO, I don't
disagree with that.

> transition from v4 to v6 and plain v4 work.

I agree with you, but differently.  There are things that DS-MIPv6
(result of mip6trans) does not address, and could only be addressed _if_
NEMOv4 existed as extensions of RFC3344, a "plain IPv4 work".  (1)
DS-MIPv6 running on a Mobile Router does not allow for LFN to have
ongoing sessions at its IPv4 permanent address and (2) DS-MIPv6 does not
provide for a transition method where the HA network is completely v6
and the access v4.  I hope this is clear, otherwise I can explain.

I realized this by looking at both MIP6 WG and NEMO WG.  Discussions of
DS-MIPv6 naturally happen only on the MIP6 mailing list (although a WG
item here too).  It's more difficult to follow two mailing lists than
one, especially vor v4-v6 transitioning.

Alex

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 10:42:55 +0900 (JST)

Hello all,

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 10:53:49 +0200

> should concentrate on IPv6 or not.

I am and will be focusing on IPv6 related topics only.  And I probably
will not be deeply involved in the IPv4 centric protocols.

But I think discussing NEMO for IPv4 protocol in this WG should not be
excluded in general.  Some of technologies or protocols may be able to
be shared by v4 and v6, and I think we should not discuss the same
things in different places.

---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <[email-masked]>
WIDE Project <[email-masked]>