Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:44:47 +0200

Dapeng,

Below is the charter text that was submitted to the next IESG. Does it cover all your concerns?

- JOuni

Distributed Mobility Management (DMM)
-------------------------------------

Charter

Current Status: Active

Chairs:
    Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
    Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Directors:
    Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
    Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:
    Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
    General Discussion: [email-masked]
    To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
    Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext

Description of Working Group:

 The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group specifies IP
 mobility, access network and routing solutions, which allow for
 setting up IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an
 optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed anchors to manage
 IP mobility sessions. The distributed mobility management solutions
 aim for transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of
 active transport level sessions as mobile hosts or entire mobile
 networks change their point of attachment to the Internet.

 The protocol solutions should be based on existing IP mobility
 protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6
 [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and NEMO [RFC3963].
 Solutions may also focus specifically on managing the use of care-of
 versus home addresses in an efficient manner for different types of
 communications.

 Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) and/or prefix(es)
 and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile hosts/routers
 change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is not a strict
 requirement. Mobile hosts/routers should not assume that IP
 addressing including home address(es) and/or home network prefix(es)
 remain the same throughout the entire upper level session lifetime,
 or that support for mobility functions is provided on the network side
 in all conditions.

 The distributed mobility management solutions primarily target IPv6
 Deployment and should not be tailored specifically to support IPv4,
 in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs
 are used. At least IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile
 host/router and the access networks. Independent of the distributed
 mobility management solution, backward compatibility must be
 maintained. If the network or the mobile host/router do not support
 the distributed mobility management enabling protocol, nothing should
 break.

Work items related to the distributed mobility management include:

 o Solution Requirements: Define precisely the problem of distributed
   mobility management and identity the requirements for a distributed
   mobility management solution.

 o Best practices: Document best practices for the deployment of existing
   mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment.

 o Gap Analysis and extensions: identify the limitations in the best
   current practices with respect to providing the expected functionality.

 o If limitations are identified as part of the above deliverable,
   specify extensions to existing protocols that removes these
   limitations within a distributed mobility management environment.

Goals and Milestones:

 Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' as a working group
            document. To be Informational RFC.
 Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' as a working
            group document. To be Informational RFC.
 Nov 2012 - Evaluate the need for additional working group document(s)
            for extensions to fill the identified gaps.
 Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' to the IESG for
            consideration as an Informational RFC.
 Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Best practices ' to the IESG forvconsideration
            as an Informational RFC.
 Mar 2013 - Submit I-D 'Gap Analysis' to the IESG for consideration as
            an Informational RFC.
 Mar 2013 - Evaluate the need for further work based on the identified
            gaps and revise the milestones and/or the charter of the
            group.

On Dec 21, 2011, at 7:53 PM, liu dapeng wrote:

> 2011/12/14, jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>:
>> Folks,
>> 
>> We have been working on a charter text from DMM based on the initial goal
>> setting and the input we received during the Taipei meeting. Note that this
>> is the first draft and now we are soliciting for input.
>> 
>> - Jouni & Julien
>> 
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Distributed Mobility Management (DMM)
>> -------------------------------------
>> 
>> Charter
>> 
>> Current Status: Active
>> 
>> Chairs:
>>     Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
>>     Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> Internet Area Directors:
>>     Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
>>     Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> Internet Area Advisor:
>>     Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> Mailing Lists:
>>     General Discussion: [email-masked]
>>     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>     Archive:            http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext
>> 
>> Description of Working Group:
>> 
>>  The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group specifies IP
>>  mobility, access network and routing solutions, which allow for
>>  setting up IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an
>>  optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed anchors to manage
>>  IP mobility sessions. The distributed mobility management solutions
>>  aim for transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of
>>  active transport level sessions as mobile hosts or entire mobile
>>  networks change their point of attachment to the Internet.
> 
> [Comment]
> 
> This point seems not specific to DMM, since all IP mobility protocol
> aim for transparency above IP layer. And the point (maintenance of
> active transport level sessions) contradicts with : “it is not a
> strict requirement to maintenance stable IP address” (later in the
> charter). Or does it mean that DMM aims to develop solutions that can
> maintain active transport level sessions without maintaining stable IP
> address?
> 
> 
>>  The protocol solutions should be enhancements to existing IP mobility
>>  protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6
>>  [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and
>>  NEMO [RFC3963]. Alternatively, the distributed mobility management
>>  solution can be transparent to any underlying IP mobility protocol.
>>  Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) and/or prefix(es)
>>  and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile hosts/routers
>>  change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is not a strict
>>  requirement.
> 
> [comment]
> please refer the previous comment.
> I think we should not exclude the solutions that can maintain stable IP address.
> 
> 
> 
> Mobile hosts/routers should not assume that IP
>>  addressing including home address(es) and/or home network prefix(es)
>>  remain the same throughout the entire upper level session lifetime.
>> 
>>  The distributed mobility management solutions primarily target IPv6
>>  Deployment and should not be tailored specifically to support IPv4,
>>  in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs
>>  are used.
> 
> [comment] Since DMM remains backward compatibility with existing IP
> mobility protocol. And DSMIPv6 can support IPv4, should we also need
> to keep IPv4 support in DMM?
> 
> 
> At least IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile
>>  host/router and the access networks. Independent of the distributed
>>  mobility management solution, backward compatibility must be
>>  maintained. If the network or the mobile host/router do not support
>>  the distributed mobility management enabling protocol, nothing should
>>  break.
>> 
>> Work items related to the distributed mobility management include:
>> 
>>  o Solution Requirements: Define precisely the problem of distributed
>>    mobility management and identity the requirements for a distributed
>>    mobility management solution.
>> 
>>  o Best practices and Gap Analysis: Document best practices for the
>>    deployment of existing mobility protocols in a distributed mobility
>>    management environment and identify the limitations of each such
>>    approach with respect to fulfillment of the solution requirements.
>> 
>>  o If limitations are identified as part of the above deliverable,
>>    specify extensions to existing protocols that removes these
>>    limitations within a distributed mobility management environment.
>> 
>> Goals and Milestones:
>> 
>>  Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' as a working
>>             group document. To be Informational RFC.
>>  Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' as a working
>>             group document. To be Informational RFC.
>>  Nov 2012 - Evaluate the need for additional working group document(s)
>>             for extensions to fill the identified gaps.
>>  Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' to the IESG for
>>             consideration as an Informational RFC.
>>  Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' to the IESG for
>>             consideration as an Informational RFC.
>>  Mar 2013 - Conclude the working group or re-charter.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ------
> Best Regards,
> Dapeng Liu

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:42:53 -0800

Hi Jouni, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of jouni korhonen
> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 2:45 AM
> To: liu dapeng
> Cc: [email-masked] Laganier; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
> 
> Dapeng,
> 

I don't understand the "should be based on existing IP
mobility protocols". IRON for example provides an
alternative mobility management solution which I believe
has significant advantages over other approaches:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironbis-10

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

> > active transport level sessions) contradicts with : "it is not a
> > strict requirement to maintenance stable IP address" (later in the

---

From: liu dapeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:34:11 +0800

Hi Jouni,

This version solves the contradiction but it gives me the impression
that DMM will only work on the solution that  "managing the use of
care-of/home addresses in an efficient manner ".  Is that correct?

Thanks.
Dapeng Liu

-- 

------
Best Regards,
Dapeng Liu

---

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:11:15 +0200

Hi Dapeng,

> care-of/home addresses in an efficient manner ".  Is that correct?

No. The beginning sentence you cited says: "Solutions may also focus
specifically on managing the use of care-of address.." Current text
"may also focus" does not restrict the scope only for CoA/HoA management.

- Jouni

---

From: jouni korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:43:44 +0200

Fred,

> [email-masked]

I admit I have not followed much of the IRON work. However, the 
overal idea is that if your solution needs specific bindings to
existing mobility providing protocol(s), then your choices more
or less are listed above (or some existing flavor/variation of
those). If your solution does not depend on any specific mobility
protocol i.e., does not require specification of protocol specific
bindings, then you are free to deploy it on top of anything,
including IRON.

- Jouni

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:52:47 -0800

Hi Jouni, 

> From: jouni korhonen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:44 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to
say, but what I am trying to say is that IRON provides
an alternative mobility management scheme that does not
depend on any of the *MIP mechanisms and is, IMHO, a
better mobility management system. Hence, I recommend
a closer look at IRON:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironbis

Thanks - Fred

---

From: Jouni <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:21:10 +0200

Fred,

>> bindings, then you are free to deploy it on top of anything,

In the above "solution" being a solution for distributed mobility
management.

Hope that clarifies.

- Jouni

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:24:11 -0800

Hi Jouni, 

> From: Jouni [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:21 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L

I'm still not exactly sure what you are tring to say.
Please have a look at IRON and let me know why or why
not you think it addresses DMM and we can go from there.

Thanks - Fred