Subject: [Mip4] Other-than-NAT in draft-sjostrand-mip4-udptunnel-mib-01?

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:03:12 +0100

Hi MIP4,

draft-sjostrand-mip4-udptunnel-mib-01 talks about MIB for Mobile IP when 
NAT Traversal is used.  As such contains knobs for keepalives, force 
UDP, etc.  I can comment on the draft in detail separately.

But I wonder whether this is the only ongoing draft that configures MIB 
knobs for Mobile IP?  I am looking for a ongoing draft that could 
eventually discuss NEMOv4 MIB knobs.  Or maybe in draft-sjostrand too 
(provided scope changes), I don't know.

A '2006bis' or '2206bis' was mentioned in another NEMO WG discussion.

Thanks,

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:32:20 +0100

Hi Alex,

> A '2006bis' or '2206bis' was mentioned in another NEMO WG discussion.

Going to the mip4 status page (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mip4/) shows
you the 2006bis document among the active mip4 WG documents.

Going to the draft and rfc search page (http://tools.ietf.org/search/)
produces one hit, which is also the correct document.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:21:07 +0100

Thanks Henrik,

I was wondering whether this is a good time to discuss about NEMOv4 
(draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-00.txt) features in MIB 
(draft-ietf-mip4-rfc2006bis-03.txt).

Basically, there are few things that would be nice to be reflected in 
the MIB:
-Prefix Table (at HA).
-Mobile Network Prefixes (at MN).
-maybe others.

So, the initial comment is whether it makes any sense to do these 
NEMOv4-related additions to Mobile IPv4 MIB?  (because it may be 
considered that the MIB done for NEMOv6, draft-ietf-nemo-mib-02.txt in 
NEMO WG, could treat IPv4 as well) (or because any other reason I miss).

Alex

---

From: Hans Sjostrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:28:15 +0100

Hi Alex,

One of the things that we do in the 2006bis work is to create some mib 
framework so that no more than the core mip management functions are in 
the mobile ip mib. Basically to put the mipMIB OID under iana control. 
This makes it easy to extend mip with new management capabilities.

Add ons, such as udp tunnelling should go into separate mibs. This is 
how all modern ietf mibs are done, see e.g. 15 mpls mibs under the 
...mib-2.transmission.mplsStdMIB  in 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers .

I don't know the NEMO management need enough to say for sure, but I'm 
very reluctant to put in new stuff in 2006bis. Having a separate mib is 
a lot better, easier and more maintainable. The big monolithic 2006bis 
is really a bad idea, but there are a large set of legacy things that 
where traditionally in rfc2006 so we couldn't go the whole way.

Looking forward to more mip mibs.
/// Hasse

On 2007-03-15 14:21, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>> draft-sjostrand-mip4-udptunnel-mib-01 talks about MIB for Mobile IP 
>>> when NAT Traversal is used.  As such contains knobs for keepalives, 
>>> force UDP, etc.  I can comment on the draft in detail separately.
>>>
>>> But I wonder whether this is the only ongoing draft that configures 
>>> MIB knobs for Mobile IP?  I am looking for a ongoing draft that 
>>> could eventually discuss NEMOv4 MIB knobs.  Or maybe in 
>>> draft-sjostrand too (provided scope changes), I don't know.
>>>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:29:17 +0100

Hi Alex,

> NEMO WG, could treat IPv4 as well) (or because any other reason I miss).

For the NAT traversal, we made the decision to not include that in the
update of the original MIPv4 MIB, but instead create a separate MIB for
the NAT traversal functionality.

I believe the same approach would be best for a MIPv4 NEMO MIB, but some
of the MIB authors may have additional thoughts.

	Henrik

---

From: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:29:48 -0700

I agree that NEMOv4 MIBs should be not be bundled into 2006bis and
separation of MIBs is much more maintainable.

Kent  

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Sjostrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:28 AM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: Mobile IPv4 Mailing List
Subject: [Mip4] Re: MIB for NEMOv4?

Hi Alex,

>> Going to the draft and rfc search page 
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/search/) produces one hit, which is also the
correct document.