Subject: Re: [netlmm] Terminology confusion in draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:32:13 -0800 (PST)

Hi Vidya,
  In SD, WG decided to go in the direction of Proxy Mobile IP not in the direction of netlmm DT draft because people wanted to see a solution with maximum reuse of the existing and well-understood IETF mobility solution called Mobile IP.
  The terminology used in draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01 is in line with this widely accepted view. I am afraid your proposal undermines the main stream thinking in the WG.

Regards,

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
To: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:15:48 PM
Subject: [netlmm] Terminology confusion in draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01

All,
Having followed all the discussion, I think there is some confusion due
to the re-use of MIP6 terminology in this draft. I suggest that we
really focus on the PMIP6 functionality and design, and use terminology
that can clearly distinguish it from MIP6. So, I suggest the following
terms: 

1. PMA (Proxy Mobility Agent) or MAG (Mobility Access Gateway)
2. LMA (Local Mobility Agent) 
3. PMIP IP Address (PIA) (Address assigned to the MN in the PMIP domain)
4. PMIP Tunnel Address (PTA) (Address of the PMA to which packets are to
be sent)

Particularly, since there are several possible realizations of MIP6 and
PMIP6 feasible in a system, using the same terminology leads to
confusion. As far as this protocol is concerned, it should have its own
functional entities. Depending on architecture choices, the functional
elements of MIP6 and PMIP6 may be collocated. 

Vidya

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

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

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:02:05 -0800

(Please use txt format when sending emails to the list)

The decision to specify PMIP6 is to base the protocol design on MIP6 -
however, using the same terminology just muddles the two protocols. It
just implies that we specify a protocol with minimal changes to MIP6 as
needed. 

Also, the protocol specified for network mobility must satisfy the
requirements specified in draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req and address the
threats specified in draft-ietf-netlmm-threats. Both those drafts are in
the RFC editor queue and use the LMA, MAG terminology - using different
terminology here is not going to help anything, including IESG/Secdir
reviews down the road. Let's stick to the terminology those drafts have
already used. That also makes the discussion of PMIP6 clearer, without
having ambiguity between that and MIP6. 

Vidya

________________________________

	From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:32 PM
	To: Narayanan, Vidya
	Cc: netlmm
	Subject: Re: [netlmm] Terminology confusion in
draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01

	Hi Vidya,
	  In SD, WG decided to go in the direction of Proxy Mobile IP
not in the direction of netlmm DT draft because people wanted to see a
solution with maximum reuse of the existing and well-understood IETF
mobility solution called Mobile IP.
	  The terminology used in draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01 is in
line with this widely accepted view. I am afraid your proposal
undermines the main stream thinking in the WG.
	 
	Regards,
	 
	--behcet

	----- Original Message ----
	From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
	To: netlmm <[email-masked]>
	Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:15:48 PM
	Subject: [netlmm] Terminology confusion in
draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01

	All,
	Having followed all the discussion, I think there is some
confusion due
	to the re-use of MIP6 terminology in this draft. I suggest that
we
	really focus on the PMIP6 functionality and design, and use
terminology
	that can clearly distinguish it from MIP6. So, I suggest the
following
	terms: 
	
	1. PMA (Proxy Mobility Agent) or MAG (Mobility Access Gateway)
	2. LMA (Local Mobility Agent) 
	3. PMIP IP Address (PIA) (Address assigned to the MN in the PMIP
domain)
	4. PMIP Tunnel Address (PTA) (Address of the PMA to which
packets are to
	be sent)
	
	Particularly, since there are several possible realizations of
MIP6 and
	PMIP6 feasible in a system, using the same terminology leads to
	confusion. As far as this protocol is concerned, it should have
its own
	functional entities. Depending on architecture choices, the
functional
	elements of MIP6 and PMIP6 may be collocated. 
	
	Vidya

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:41:56 +0100

If we want to be consistent with what is done in PMIPv4, we should stick 
with exsisting MIP6 terminology in PMIPv6.
Generally speaking, "Proxy" concepts and behaviors do not break 
exisiting "non-proxied" principles. It is just "a man in the middle" 
that is supposed to be transparent to "exisiting" non-proxied system. In 
that sense, people do care to use a common terminology. If preliminary 
specification (such as requirements, problem analysis...) has used a 
different terminology, this shall not be visible in the protocol 
specification.