Subject: RE: [Mip6] Draft Agenda for WG meeting at IETF58

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:16:54 -0500

Hi Thierry,

>Hi Basavaraj,
>
>Thanks to your answer. Comments to your answer, and request below:
>
>
>> > First thing first: I may have missed something during the MIP6 charter
>> > discussion: I don't see anything related to multihomed mobile node.
>> > (multihoming covers MNs with several interfaces, MNs with several HAs,
>> > and MNs with several HoAs/CoAs). Is this something to be excluded or
>> > included in this WG ?
>> 
>> This is not within the scope of the current charter. I (chair hat off)
>> do not believe there is any urgency to deal with this problem. Hence
>> can be considered in a future revision of the charter if deemed necessary.
>
>Well, I cannot really agree. 

Not a problem. We can disagree about its need for now.

>In the first place, why did you list the Nomad draft if it's not within
>the scope ?

Well... My mistake. I did ask the author(s) to justify how this I-D
fits in the charter, and if it did not, to show that there is WG interest
in this by having a discussion on the ML. But that has not
happened. 

>In the second place, there are a few drafts turning around this issues,
>and drafts have been submitted regularly for a few years. So, given the
>number of drafts and period of effect, I find it rather important. On a
>personal side, I would like to see something coming up from this
>activity so that we can implement a common solution, no doing our own
>cooking in our lab.

I am aware of the various drafts addressing this. But I do not see why
this is a critical need for the WG to take on at this time. I do not
for example see a large number of people in the WG demanding that this
be a work item because it is absolutely a MUST for mobile IPv6 to be
deployed. What you are cooking in your lab may be interesting but is
not necessarily needed by the industry at this time. So if you believe
that there is interest in this work, the I-D can always be
standardized as Experimental (without WG intervention) which would let
the people with common interests implement it and interop.

>
>Anyway, let's see why the other people are thinking. If it happens that
>there is no room in this WG to deal with issue, I will most likely
>propose a BOF at Seoul Meeting (and, well, this might not be a bad idea,
>because the benefit of having several interfaces [either actual, or
>virtual] could be shared by both Fixed Nodes and Mobile Nodes (I'm not
>exclusively thinking about NEMO, although the idea comes from there]).
>The reason I have not yet pushed toward a new WG is because there are
>already many WGs. 

Well, please do intiate a discussion on this topic to determine 
 - the interest
 - how vital is this for IPv6 mobility

>
>In conclusion, may I request a short slot to deal the issue (not the
>solutions) during the meeting, please, so that we come to a WG consensus
>and act upon it ?

Sure, but first you have to demonstrate via the ML that there is some
interest in this topic. If you can do that in the next week or so, we
can include it on the agenda.

>Thierry.

-Basavaraj

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:41:58 +0900

Hi Basavaraj,

I find your answer amazing...

Given the fact the MIP6 WG is a new group, I find it very appropriate to
discuss the missions of the WG right now. Also, I would find very
appropriate to raise the issue at the meeting to see how many people
have interest in this. If only a minority has, so, very fine, it means
it's not considered important. Demonstration done.

> for example see a large number of people in the WG demanding that this

Please specify: how many people is considered "large" ?

> not necessarily needed by the industry at this time. 

Huh ? The industry your are refering too is not the same as the one I'm
involved in. The fact that I work for a University doesn't necessarily
make me unaware of business realities.

> So if you believe

Don't take me wrong: I don't have any solution, so I cannot expect
anything to be experimental ... But THERE ARE solutions, and all of them
address distinct and complementary issues. The purpose of this
discussion and draft-montavont is to come to an agreement on what is
needed so that all the parties involved can work on a single solution.
The need WG directive to achieve this. Designing a single specification
is clearly a WG task.

> can include it on the agenda.

This discussion is already initiated, and several people have already
answered. I don't think it's necessary to demonstrate how vital it is
for IPv6 mobility (could you by the way demonstrate how vital Mobile
IPv6 is ? What about RO ? Just kidding); simply demonstrating the
interest of people to work on this is enough. So, I will let the other
intereted ML members with some space to pop up on the ML.

Thierry.

---

From: "Niko A. Fikouras" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:49:05 +0200

Dear all,

since the name of the Nomad draft has been involved in this discussion, 
we think that we should contribute our 2 cents.

First of all, independently of whether it is the nomad draft that gets 
presented in the next IETF meeting, we think that there has to be some 
presentation in the area of multiple CoA, flow distribution, etc. and 
maybe it should be accompanied by some thoughts on amending the WG 
charter. After all, it should reflect the topics of interest of the 
community and if this discussion is not a signal in that direction then 
we do not know what is.

IMHO, Basavaraj's selection of the nomad draft for the draft agenda was 
based on the fact that nomad is the only of the proposed solutions, to 
my knowledge, that maintains an implementation for quite some time now 
and could bring some results into the discussion. We have been working 
on the protocol (initially for the v4 version) for a long time and we 
could bring in some "hands-on" experience. Even if nomad does not 
eventually get the chance to be presented in the next meeting let us at 
least start with a useful discussion on this topic in the ML apart from 
just hosting tense discussions.

All comments are welcome.

Best Regards
nomad authors

---

From: Thomas Noel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:12:22 +0200

Niko, all

> community and if this discussion is not a signal in that direction then 

Agreed,

> just hosting tense discussions.

Yes, but I think it would be interesting to present and discuss the 
issues before describing solutions and results.

Thomas

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:52:27 -0700

Thierry,

I wish you had bought this up a month ago when the MIP6
charter was being discussed. we could have added multi-
homed (or more explicitly multi-interface) mobile nodes
to the charter.

now the charter is finalised, there are work items and
the schedule to complete the work items on the charter
is very aggresive. see
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip6-charter.html.

there is nothing wrong when Raj said he didnt see any
interest for multi-homed mobile nodes. nobody bought
them up when the charter was being discussed.

Vijay

ps: I am not against including multi-homed mobile nodes
in the charter. infact I think we should work on them.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 04:01:20 +0900

Hi  Basavaraj,

> homed (or more explicitly multi-interface) mobile nodes

Just one quick comment: I did brought this up a month ago. See in the
archives. The first answer I got was from Hesham.

Thierry.