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

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 07:01:18 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:28 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 ?
> 

To second Alex, next is what people agree to do.

> 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).
> 

What is the message that the IETF gives to the world? Please show me the
message written somewhere. The IETF has no message. The IETF produces
technology when people agree to define it. The market decides what is
worth using. 

Beside, we are not talking about major technology shifts here. It is not
like we are suggesting a new version of the Internet Protocol to which
the IETF collective (whatever that is) has to agree to. We are talking
about simple and technically sound extensions to existing and already
deployed technology. 

George

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:16:28 +0200

Hi.

> To second Alex, next is what people agree to do.

I would add: collectively, and based on rough consensus, as it has
always been within the IETF.

> about simple and technically sound extensions to existing and already

I have a subtle understanding of what the message should be, and it is
valid in all organizations: been clear, not confusing, and well
documented. We cannot develop IPv4 and IPv6 protocols in the same group
(unless, as I said, we are working on interoperability issues). 

>From outside, NEMO is seen as a WG focusing on IPv6. 

In addition to this, there is a vast majority of people active in the
NEMO WG who really don't have interest in IPv4.  So, not only our output
must be clear for the people monitoring what the WG is doing, but also
we must make all the necessary things to gather within this group active
participants with a clear focus of what we are doing.

My personal position has always been that people willing to bring
similar features to IPv4 or whatever which is not IPv6 should simply
gather together and set up their own WG.

Thierry.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 16:59:53 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> I have a subtle understanding of what the message should be, and it 
> is valid in all organizations: been clear, not confusing, and well 
> documented.

I agree, inter-operability between v4 and v6 is necessary.  Knowing that
MIP4 3344 doesn't provide network mobility, and that mip6trans of this
NEMO WG is working on v4 and v6 inter-operability - it is obvious to me
that MIP4 NEMO extensions should be done and is being done here,
something that has been already agreed since some time.

Being incoherent about how NEMOv6 and NEMOv4 work only makes tougher the
work of inter-operability between them.  One example is in netlmm, where
main IPv4 address auto-configuration (DHCP) is so different than IPv6
(stateless) that netlmm has more work to do to transform stateless into
DHCP.  Or here, we want NEMOv4 to also use prefixes in RegReq just
as NEMOv6 does in BU.  If not, the mip6trans DT will be tempted to add
IPv4 prefixes in the BU as well, for good reason.

People deploying moving networks would like to do so similarly for v4
and v6.  They wouldn't prefer to use NEMOv6 for IPv6, but NAT+DHCP for IPv4.

> We cannot develop IPv4 and IPv6 protocols in the same group (unless,
>  as I said, we are working on interoperability issues).

Why not?

DHCP is done in DHC WG for both v4 and v6.  Similar with IKE and DNS.

> From outside, NEMO is seen as a WG focusing on IPv6.

I'm not sure about this exclusivity.  From the outside that I see the WG
is working on Network Mobility.  It is true that up to late 2005 it did
mainly NEMOv6 with MIP6 3775.

If there is a need to educate the "outside" as to what this WG is doing
- that's the job of both its Chairs or any other participant.

>  NEMO WG who really don't have interest in IPv4.

If it were so, mip6trans DT wouldn't be attached to NEMO WG and to MIP6
WG.  Mip6trans DT addresses important IPv4 aspets, for example it
considers the HA to run an IPv4 stack and connected to the IPv4
Internet, with IPv6 addresses being IPv4-mapped.

> So, not only our output must be clear for the people monitoring what 
> the WG is doing,

Yes, I completely agree, we should be clear on that.

> but also we must make all the necessary things to gather within this
>  group active participants with a clear focus of what we are doing.

YEs.  That is already happening.  With respect to IPv4-related
activities, we have already atracted active participants with a clear
focus of what we are doing about IPv4.  mip6trans is but an example.

>  gather together and set up their own WG.

This didn't happen with the mip6trans DT: mip6trans is doing some IPv4
stuff.  They didn't form their separated WG.

But I agree with you there's a fine balance to be achieved between
effort spent in re-organizing activities, effort spent in documenting
and agreeing on technologies and effort spent on educating the outside
of the WG about what this WG is doing.  Outside the WG there are many
documenting papers about the WG, speeches, books, and so on.  These are
all excellent venues for educating the outside.

Alex
PS: one can't use NEMO as being IPv6 only and as a technical superiority
to enforce switching from IPv4 to IPv6.  People can and do today IPv4
moving networks with NEMOv4, with DHCP+NAT and many other ways.
Somebody even sells "Mobile Routers" that don't do IPv6 at all.  But I
agree with you it may have been a motivator in the long gone past.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 17:21:14 +0200

I will not answer back your mail Alex though I have a comment for every
single sentence, because I don't want to enter into a long-lasting
debate. 

What I would like to get is room for other people expressing their will
for what should be in scope of the NEMO WG vs what shouldn't.

IMHO, what matters now the most are operational issues with deploying
existing RFC 3963 (e.g. Global HAHA, fixing RFC 3963, multiple MR, etc).
If NEMOv4 stuff helps deploying RFC 3963, why not ?  But I have some
doubts here. 

Thierry.

On Thu, 04 May 2006 16:59:53 +0200

-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD
INRIA Rocquencourt Projet IMARA
+33 1 39 63 59 30

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 10:21:30 -0700

I agree on focusing on IPv6 in the NEMO WG.

Vijay

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 21:31:20 +0200

> I agree on focusing on IPv6 in the NEMO WG.

I somehow agree but the focusing is debatable.  Would you care to
say what and why?

Alex

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 00:00:36 +0900

Hi Alex

On 2006/05/04, at 23:59, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

<SNIP>

> Internet, with IPv6 addresses being IPv4-mapped.

This is wrong. When v6 service is launched, operator must consider v4  
access network which is majority of the Internet still.
Applications are also developed with IPv4. Therefore, mip6trans work  
is definitely related to NEMOv6 activity.
I think Thierry said about a basic v4 mobility protocol for NEMO.
The mip6trans is extension to MIP6/NEMOv6.

ryuji

>> So, not only our output must be clear for the people monitoring  
>> what the WG is doing,
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 21:14:49 +0200

Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
>>> In addition to this, there is a vast majority of people active in
>>>  the NEMO WG who really don't have interest in IPv4.
>> 
>> If it were so, mip6trans DT wouldn't be attached to NEMO WG and to
>>  MIP6 WG.  Mip6trans DT addresses important IPv4 aspets, for
>> example it considers the HA to run an IPv4 stack and connected to
>> the IPv4 Internet, with IPv6 addresses being IPv4-mapped.
> 

Indeed, when operator launches v6 service it will somehow still carry on
an IPv4 address architecture.  But I think you agree too that in the
farthest future some v6 operators will eventually have only an IPv6 HA
infrastructure (not IPv4 addressable) while some other operators will
continue to offer v4-only access to mobiles.  In this particular case
the DS-MIPv6 (as proposed today) is probably a little less adapted, maybe.

>  is definitely related to NEMOv6 activity.

I agree it _is_ related, didn't try to express the opposite.

> I think Thierry said about a basic v4 mobility protocol for NEMO. The
>  mip6trans is extension to MIP6/NEMOv6.

Ok.

Alex

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 10:04:46 -0700

> (unless, as I said, we are working on interoperability issues).

I would like to add one comment to this discussion. It seems  
appropriate to make a solution for IPv4-only networks, which  
thankfully is now underway. At some point it may make sense to form a  
separate working group for IPv4-only issues, but it's probably a bit  
too early to do that until the work is more mature, and the industry  
interest level and engineering participation within the IETF can be  
gauged.

For IPv4-IPv6 mixed networks, it makes sense to me that we continue  
to work on that issue here in this group (and in the Mobile IPv6  
working group).

I understand some people have no interest in working on IPv4-only  
protocols, and likewise some people in NEMO probably have little or  
no interest in IPv6-only protocols. But in a mixed network, we should  
have something to say about how NEMO will work. After all, that  
scenario is a growth industry.

TJ