Subject: [Mipshop] update on status of the group

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:35:34 +0200

Folks,

Just wanted to let the group know the latest developments. The charter
proposed for the BoF was reworked a bit by AD and IESG/IAB review into
the text included below.

One item that was identified during the IESG/IAB review was the need
to be a bit more proactive with respect to security.

This does not mean that the group must solve all the security issues.
No. We can go ahead and follow a somewhat aggressive schedule to
publish the protocols without complete security solutions, as we
have been planning all along, precisely because the targets
are experimental and informational documents, not proposed standard.

It only means that the group should document clearly the security
issues we're not solving. The idea is to provide good feedback
for other groups (e.g., related IRTF activities) to go solve these issues.
We are not targetting any new documents, so whatever additional
text would simply be added into the security considerations section.

With the understanding (and words in the charter) to the effect
that we'll be more proactive in documenting security issues,
the charter is almost ready to be approved. Not there yet, but
we're close to having a WG status. Nevertheless, the charter
below may still change a bit, but hopefully not much if at all.

As for last calls, Carl is revising LMM-requirements in preparation
for WG last call.

-gabriel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile IPv6 specifies routing support to permit IP hosts using IPv6 to
move between IP subnetworks while maintaining session
continuity. Mobile IPv6 supports transparency above the IP layer,
including maintenance of active TCP connections and UDP port bindings.

To accomplish this, the mobile node notifies its home agent (and
potentially also its correspondent nodes) of the current binding between its
home address and its care of address. This binding allows a mobile node
to maintain connectivity with the Internet as it moves between
subnets.

Depending on what steps a mobile node must perform on a new subnet, the
lag between when the mobile node has layer 2 connectivity and when it
begins sending and receiving packets on the new link may be
substantial. A mobile node must first detect at layer 3 that its point
of attachment has changed, then it must perform configuration on the
new link, including router discovery and configuring a new care of
address. After that, the mobile node must perform binding updates with
the home address and any correspondent nodes.  Since many layer 2
mobility technologies require that the mobile node drop its link
connectivity to the old subnet when moving, any packets between the
correspondent node and the mobile node sent or in-flight during this
time arrive at the old care of address, where they are dropped.  Such
packet loss may have significant adverse effects.

The Mobile IP Working group had previously been developing two
technologies to address the issues of signaling overhead and handoff
latency/packet loss:

  - Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 mobility management (HMIPv6)

    HMIPv6 deals with reducing the amount and latency of signaling
    between a MN, its Home Agent and one or more correspondents by
    introducing the Mobility Anchor Point (MAP) (a special node located
    in the network visited by the mobile node).  The MAP acts somewhat
    like a local home agent for the visiting mobile node by limiting
    the amount of signaling required outside the MAP's domain.

  - Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6)

    FMIPv6 reduces packet loss by providing fast IP connectivity as
    soon as a new link is established. It does so by fixing up the
    routing during link configuration and binding update, so that
    packets delivered to the old care of address are forwarded to the
    new. In addition, FMIPv6 provides support for preconfiguration of
    link information (such as the subnet prefix) in the new subnet
    while the mobile node is still attached to the old subnet. This
    reduces the amount of preconfiguration time in the new subnet.

These two technologies can be used separately or together to reduce or
eliminate signaling overhead and packet loss due to handoff delays in
Mobile IPv6.

Scope of MIPSHOP:

The MIPSHOP Working Group will complete the FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 work
begun in the Mobile IP Working Group. Specifically, the WG will:

1) Complete the specification of HMIPv6 protocol.

2) Complete the specification of FMIPv6 protocol.

    Because work (ongoing or originating) in other working groups may
    suggest changes or alternative designs for HMIPv6 and FMIPv6, these
    specifications will be advanced as Experimental RFCs until more
    experience is obtained with IP mobility in IPv6.

3) Complete work on a set of requirements for "Localized Mobility
    Management (LMM)", whereby a Mobile Node is able to continue
    receiving packets in a new subnet before the corresponding changes
    in either the Home Agent or Correspondent Node binding.  It is the
    intention that the requirements be consistent with the FMIPv6 and
    HMIPv6 protocols; in the event that there are inconsistencies, they
    will be documented.

4) Complete work on the applicability of FMIPv6 in the specific case
    of 802.11 networks for advancement as Informational RFC.

There are security issues that arise because of the highly dynamic
nature of the security relationships between, say, a mobile node and
its mobility anchor points, or between a mobile node and its access
routers in a fast handover scenario.  The working group is not required
to provide solutions to all these issues before publishing its
experimental and informational protocols.  The working group will
document the security requirements and the shortcomings of the
solutions in the corresponding protocol specifications. This will
provide valuable feedback to other groups or subsequent efforts.

Schedule
--------

OCT 03 - Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-lmm-requirements-XX.txt

OCT 03 - Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-hmip-xx.txt.

NOV 03 - Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-xx.txt.

NOV 03 - Discuss Last Call comments and security analyses at IETF 58.

DEC 03 - Submit draft draft-ietf-mipshop-lmm-requirements-XX.txt to IESG
	 for consideration of publication as Informational.

JAN 04 - Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-hmip-xx.txt to IESG for consideration
	 of publication as Experimental.

JAN 04 - Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-fmipv6-xx.txt to IESG for consideration
	 of publication as Experimental.

FEB 04 - Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-80211fh-xx.txt
          for Informational

APR 04 - Submit draft-ietf-mipshop-80211fh-xx.txt to IESG for
	 consideration of publication as Informational.

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop