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

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 05:36:29 -0700

Thierry,

Your last e-mail is a bit confusing. Did you mean to say that the NEMOv4
could be taken care in the MIP4 WG?

If that is what you said, then yes, it could be done there but it would
be weird to do so. Network Mobility is Network Mobility (v4 or v6).
Talking about confusing the observer...

I find the desire to work on v4 only or v6 only issues narrow minded. We
still exist in an IPv4 world and when IPv6 is deployed we will exist in
a dual stack world for a long, long time. Why do people think that it is
a good idea to "focus" on one version of IP or another is a mystery. 

But even if some people do want to have IPv6 only "focus", the argument
that a discussion about IPv4 would "break their concentration" and
"cause them to loose track of the important threads" is very, very lame.
Come one guys, be serious. 

George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 8:13 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > Julien Bournelle wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Thierry ERNST, PhD
> INRIA Rocquencourt Projet IMARA
> +33 1 39 63 59 30
>

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 15:04:32 +0200

Hi George,

> could be taken care in the MIP4 WG?

Yes, I meant this.
 
> Talking about confusing the observer...

Depends where the observer stands, if the observer stands on the IPv6
side, he certainly wants more IPv6 issues to be addressed and not being
diverted by IPv4 issues.  Tell me why MobileIP was divided between MIP4
and MIP6.

Working on both IPv4 and IPv6 in the same WG would make the overall
output less effective and delay deployment of the technologies (and
here, I mean it would delay the deployment of both NEMOv4 and NEMOv6,
though I'm more concerned about the v6 deployment).

Let's not forget that the NEMO work is based on Mobile IP work.  The
IPv4 expertise is in the MIPv4 WG, not in the NEMO WG (of course, you
could argue that the IPv4 expertise coud be brought in the NEMO WG, but
this doesn't mean MIPv4 shouldn't be considered in the 1st place).

> a good idea to "focus" on one version of IP or another is a mystery. 

When I said "focusing" I meant for the NEMO WG, not for the entire IETF.
IPv4 WGs are better for this work being done. 

> Come one guys, be serious. 

I'm very serious, and other people on this thread have supported this
view that it would.

Thierry.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 11:10:08 -0700

> Come one guys, be serious. 

oh yeah.. I like to just waste my time being
humorous on the mailing list... its my favorite
past time...

Vijay

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:08:34 -0700

Trying to uplevel this discussion a bit...

I think the first thing the NEMO WG needs to decide on is whether the WG 
should broaden out its topic area to include network mobility in general. 
The first set of deliverables involved a network-mobility extension to 
MIPv6. Now, it seems like there are a few non-MIPv6 and even non-MIP 
approaches that people are interested in. For example, a routing-based 
approach would be appealing to customers such as Connexion. And, as some 
have mentioned, a MIPv4 based approach might have some commercial appeal.

There are pros and cons of broadening the topic area for a WG. The WG needs 
to make sure the right people are present, which might not be the case, for 
example, if a routing approach is discussed and the WG has not history of 
examining routing-based approaches. On the other hand, is there enough 
additional work involved in the current MIPv6-only approach to continue a WG 
narrowly focussed on that topic area? It seems as if there are quite a few 
yet on-going drafts that need to be completed for the MIPv6-only approach, 
and the amount of new work that has been proposed in that vein is actually 
quite minimal. Of that new work, there is some question whether one item - 
route optimization - really falls under the MIPv6-based approach, since 
route optimization for moving networks using the NEMO-base is still not very 
well understood and is more of a research topic. Are there others?

Maybe now is too soon to conduct this kind of deep rechartering discussion. 
Perhaps the WG should wait until the current set of MIPv6-based approach 
drafts are complete, then have the disucussion about whether to broaden the 
topic area or keep it narrow.

            jak

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 13:34:27 +0200

James Kempf wrote:
> I think the first thing the NEMO WG needs to decide on is whether the
>  WG should broaden out its topic area to include network mobility in
>  general. The first set of deliverables involved a network-mobility 
> extension to MIPv6. Now, it seems like there are a few non-MIPv6 and 
> even non-MIP approaches that people are interested in. For example, a
> routing-based approach would be appealing to customers such as 
> Connexion. And, as some have mentioned, a MIPv4 based approach might 
> have some commercial appeal.
> 
> There are pros and cons of broadening the topic area for a WG. The WG
>  needs to make sure the right people are present, which might not be 
> the case, for example, if a routing approach is discussed and the WG 
> has not history of examining routing-based approaches. On the other 
> hand, is there enough additional work involved in the current 
> MIPv6-only approach to continue a WG narrowly focussed on that topic 
> area? It seems as if there are quite a few yet on-going drafts that 
> need to be completed for the MIPv6-only approach, and the amount of 
> new work that has been proposed in that vein is actually quite 
> minimal. Of that new work, there is some question whether one item - 
> route optimization - really falls under the MIPv6-based approach, 
> since route optimization for moving networks using the NEMO-base is 
> still not very well understood and is more of a research topic. Are 
> there others?
> 
> Maybe now is too soon to conduct this kind of deep rechartering 
> discussion. Perhaps the WG should wait until the current set of 
> MIPv6-based approach drafts are complete, then have the disucussion 
> about whether to broaden the topic area or keep it narrow.

I am a strong proponent of keeping a WG focus narrow, to one only base
protocol and eventual enhancements of that protocol.  In this respect, I
consider that the work items suggested can be grouped in at least three
narrowly focused WGs:

1) NEMOv6 + prefix delegation + other bootstrapping;
    NEMOv4 + FA extensions + v4 prefix delegation + other bootstrapping.

2) v4-v6 traversal schemes for Mobile IPv6.

3) Alternative routing, network mobility without session continuity,
    without permanent reachability, route optimization for MNP, multiple
    interfaces and homing.  For v4  and v6.

This makes for three WGs and of course there's little place for so many.
  Some of the aspects can be addressed by existing WGs.

And I would oppose addressing GlobalHAHA in the NEMO WG.  GlobalHAHA is
an extension that has more impact on Mobile IPv6 than on the NEMOv6 part
of Mobile IPv6.

Alex

---

From: "Pedro Pinheiro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 22:15:51 +0100

Hi all,

First of all, I am sorry for being intrusive in your discussion, but I would
like to add my humble opinion.

I believe that nobility is a future wave that requires an open mind and that
requires some break with the past in order to allow a really emerging
technology awaiting the WG important work: _really_ feasible mobile
networking. 

This will, probably, require some work in the protocol.
As so, I believe it will be more productive if the WC spends its efforts
working in the future protocol - the one that will be viable for the
eventual future number of devices that will require a huge number of IP
addresses - the IPv6 protocol.

Only after that I believe it will *probably* would be a good idea to see if
it is viable on IPv4 environment.

I hope it's not too naïf... 
Best regards,
Pedro Vapi

------------------------------------
Universidade de Coimbra
Pedro Pinheiro
Eng, MSc
[email-masked]
Centro de Informatica 
R. Arco da Traição, Ap. 3080
3001-401 COIMBRA
tel: +351 239 853 170
fax: +351 239 853 189
IM: MSN: [email-masked]
Skype ID:pedrovapi
------------------------------------
> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: terça-feira, 9 de Maio de 2006 12:34
> To: James Kempf
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 01:31:16 +0200

Hi Pedro,

Until August 2005 the WG has worked on an IPv6-based protocol for
network mobility, the one viable for a large number of devices.  It's in
rfc3963, and it mainly extends Mobile IPv6 Binding Update and Binding
Acknowledgements to register home prefixes (in addition to the home
address of the Mobile Router).

Is this the future protocol you think of, or something else?

This is why some of us were thinking that same thing that was tried for
IPv6 already, could be tried to see whether it is viable in an IPv4
environment.

Alex

Pedro Pinheiro wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> First of all, I am sorry for being intrusive in your discussion, but 
> I would like to add my humble opinion.
> 
> I believe that nobility is a future wave that requires an open mind 
> and that requires some break with the past in order to allow a really
>  emerging technology awaiting the WG important work: _really_
> feasible mobile networking.
> 
> This will, probably, require some work in the protocol. As so, I 
> believe it will be more productive if the WC spends its efforts 
>  eventual future number of devices that will require a huge number of
>  IP addresses - the IPv6 protocol.
> 
> Only after that I believe it will *probably* would be a good idea to 
> see if it is viable on IPv4 environment.
> 
> I hope it's not too naïf... Best regards, Pedro Vapi
> 
> ------------------------------------ Universidade de Coimbra Pedro 
> Pinheiro Eng, MSc [email-masked] Centro de Informatica R. Arco da 
> Traição, Ap. 3080 3001-401 COIMBRA tel: +351 239 853 170 fax: +351 
> 239 853 189 IM: MSN: [email-masked] Skype ID:pedrovapi 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu 
>> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: terça-feira, 9 de 
>> Maio de 2006 12:34 To: James Kempf Cc: [email-masked] Subject: Re: 
>> [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.
>> 
>> James Kempf wrote:
>>> I think the first thing the NEMO WG needs to decide on is whether
>>>  the WG should broaden out its topic area to include network 
>>> mobility in general. The first set of deliverables involved a 
>>> network-mobility extension to MIPv6. Now, it seems like there are
>>>  a few non-MIPv6 and even non-MIP approaches that people are 
>>> interested in. For example, a routing-based approach would be 
>>> appealing to customers such as Connexion. And, as some have 
>>> mentioned, a MIPv4 based approach might have some commercial 
>>> appeal.
>>> 
>>> There are pros and cons of broadening the topic area for a WG. 
>>> The WG needs to make sure the right people are present, which 
>>> might not be the case, for example, if a routing approach is 
>>> discussed and the WG has not history of examining routing-based 
>>> approaches. On the other hand, is there enough additional work 
>>> involved in the current MIPv6-only approach to continue a WG 
>>> narrowly focussed on that topic area? It seems as if there are 
>>> quite a few yet on-going drafts that need to be completed for the
>>>  MIPv6-only approach, and the amount of new work that has been 
>>> proposed in that vein is actually quite minimal. Of that new 
>>> work, there is some question whether one item - route 
>>> optimization - really falls under the MIPv6-based approach, since
>>>  route optimization for moving networks using the NEMO-base is 
>>> still not very well understood and is more of a research topic. 
>>> Are there others?
>>> 
>>> MIPv6-based approach drafts are complete, then have the 
>>> disucussion about whether to broaden the topic area or keep it 
>>> narrow.
>> I am a strong proponent of keeping a WG focus narrow, to one only 
>> base protocol and eventual enhancements of that protocol.  In this 
>> respect, I consider that the work items suggested can be grouped in
>>  at least three narrowly focused WGs:
>> 
>> 1) NEMOv6 + prefix delegation + other bootstrapping; NEMOv4 + FA 
>> extensions + v4 prefix delegation + other bootstrapping.
>> 
>> 3) Alternative routing, network mobility without session 
>> continuity, without permanent reachability, route optimization for 
>> MNP, multiple interfaces and homing.  For v4  and v6.
>> 
>> This makes for three WGs and of course there's little place for so 
>> many. Some of the aspects can be addressed by existing WGs.
>> 
>> And I would oppose addressing GlobalHAHA in the NEMO WG. GlobalHAHA
>> is an extension that has more impact on Mobile IPv6 than on the
>> NEMOv6 part of Mobile IPv6.
>> 
>> Alex
> 
>

---

From: Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 13:25:37 +0900

Hi Alex,

Following the discussion from the beginning, I still do not understand 
what is the advantage of NEMOv4 and extensions compared to, for example, 
the DSMIPv6 solution. Your point with DSMIPv6 seems to be that the HA 
requires IPv6. Is there any other concern? Maybe I missed something.

DSMIPv6 is very promising as it allows to get both IPv4 and IPv6 access 
in the Mobile Network, while crossing through IPv6 or IPv4 networks. I 
cannot see what advantages could bring a pure v4 solution in the future.

Regards,

-- 
Romain KUNTZ
[email-masked]

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> First of all, I am sorry for being intrusive in your discussion, but I 
>> would like to add my humble opinion.
>>
>> Traição, Ap. 3080 3001-401 COIMBRA tel: +351 239 853 170 fax: +351 239 
>> 853 189 IM: MSN: [email-masked] Skype ID:pedrovapi 
>>> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: terça-feira, 9 de Maio 
>>> de 2006 12:34 To: James Kempf Cc: [email-masked] Subject: Re: [nemo] 
>>> Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.
>>>
>>> James Kempf wrote:
>>>> mentioned, a MIPv4 based approach might have some commercial appeal.
>>>>
>>>> There are pros and cons of broadening the topic area for a WG. The 
>>>> WG needs to make sure the right people are present, which might not 
>>>> be the case, for example, if a routing approach is discussed and the 
>>>> WG has not history of examining routing-based approaches. On the 
>>>> other hand, is there enough additional work involved in the current 
>>>> need to be completed for the
>>>> proposed in that vein is actually quite minimal. Of that new work, 
>>>> there is some question whether one item - route optimization - 
>>>> really falls under the MIPv6-based approach, since
>>>>  route optimization for moving networks using the NEMO-base is still 
>>>> not very well understood and is more of a research topic. Are there 
>>>> others?
>>>>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:10:42 +0200

Romain KUNTZ wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Following the discussion from the beginning, I still do not 
> understand what is the advantage of NEMOv4 and extensions compared 
> to, for example, the DSMIPv6 solution. Your point with DSMIPv6 seems 
> to be that the HA requires IPv6. Is there any other concern? Maybe I 
> missed something.

DS-MIPv6 does not have IPv4 moving network prefixes in the BU (although
it may carry an IPv4 hoa).

The consequence to that should not to be to add the v4 MNP in the
DS-MIPv6 BU.  DS-MIPv6 already has a too wide scope, should be reduced.
  It should only cover v6 continuous apps and permanent v6 hoa when MN
connected to v4-only access network.  Should not cover v4 hoa, nor v4
mnp, when connected to a v6-only access network.  The reason for that is
that if it tries to do so it becomes a MIP4.  And also, doing so has
much impact on other protocols that are only IPv4 or only IPv6 (not
mixtures).  E.g. how would DHCPv4 bootstrap a DS-MIPv6 MN is a complete
unknown.

> DSMIPv6 is very promising as it allows to get both IPv4 and IPv6 
> access in the Mobile Network, while crossing through IPv6 or IPv4 
> networks.

While it allows an IPv6 access in the moving network when MR connected
to a v4 access network it does not allow for IPv4 access in the moving
network (although MR connected to a v4 access network).

> I cannot see what advantages could bring a pure v4 solution in the 
> future.

A pure MIP4 NEMOv4 solution allows LFN to have v4 permanent home address
and v4 MNP when MR connected to a v4-only access network, naturally;
when connected to a v4-only network no need to convert v4 into v6 and
back into v4.  Too much conversion v4-v6-v4 is not good for the
conversion itself.

The DS-MIPv6 design is based on two main assumptions: (1) not enough
memory on MN to run both MIP4 and MIP6 and (2) network bandwidth
unnecessarily used for both signalling (i.e. MN sends both IPv4 RegReq
and IPv6 BU when changing a CoA).

For (1) there are several mobile phones in the market that easily
support two stacks MIP6 and MIP4, and their combined memory footprint is
about 3% or less of the total available memory.

For (2), when a MN is connected to a v4-only access network that manages
its mobility with link-layer, the v4 address does not change whenever
changing attachment (i.e. no RegReq for movement) and the v6 address
does not change either if a constant prefix is assigned on the UDP v4
tunnel interface (i.e. no BU for movement within that v4-only network).
  There will be RegReqs and BUs but not upon every movement.  They'll
happen only for updating the lifetime (maybe every 5 minutes).

DS-MIPv6 has other advantages but not with respect to MIP4 NEMOv4.

I hope this is relevant to the questions, otherwise please follow-up I
will try to clarify.

Alex