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

From: "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:58:53 -0500

Barney,

Just to make a clarification: 3GPP2 has not formally adopted any text
that describes PMIP protocol operation. Albeit there were some
discussion on PMIP and its use in HRPD fast handoff, but as you may be
aware, nothing has been finalized yet. So, the reference to p-HA vs. the
HA that is used for Client MIP is not a valid justification to backup
your views.

The way the current I-D is written, it does not preclude the use of the
same Home Agent to serve MIP sessions crated with PMIP6 and CMIP6.
Moreover, one of the motivations for defining PMIP6 is to reuse the MIP6
protocol and MIP6 functional elements as much as possible. The
terminologies used in MIP are well understood. Changes can certainly be
made to the terminologies if there were good reasons to do so. We are
looking for a better reason to justify a change of terminology of the
common functional elements.

-Kuntal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barnaba Barnowski [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:02 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [netlmm] Terminology confusion in draft-sgundave-mip6-
> proxymip6-01
> 
> Hi:
> 
> The re-use of MIP6 terminology in the context of PMIP6 protocol
> definition creates some confusion, especially when discussing
> architecture in different SDOs.  Specifically it muddles the
discussion
> about PMIP6/MIP6 co-existence and interaction.  While I agree that in
> the near term the focus should be on defining PMIP6 protocol, the
issue
> of PMIP6/MIP6 co-existence still needs to be addressed (and soon!).
> Shared terminology will make this more difficult.  For instance in
3GPP2
> the PMIP HA (p-HA, LMA) will not always be co-located with a client
MIP
> HA.   It is therefore much easier to discuss the PMIP6/MIP6
interaction
> (or opaqueness) if one can refer to an HA and mean MIP6 and an LMA and
> mean PMIP6.  The actual functionality of an HA and an LMA may still be
> very similar, if not the same.
> 
> Cheers
> Barney
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:54:03 -0800 (PST)

Hi Vidya,
  Are we disallowed to make html postings? 
Can you please clarify it?

Kind regards,

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Cc: netlmm <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 5:02:05 PM
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Terminology confusion in draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-01

(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: "Barnaba Barnowski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:15:06 -0500

Hi Kuntal:

Grant it, 3GPP2 has not fully settled on the use of PMIP.  However, as
you probably know this is an active topic of discussion not just limited
to HRPD FHO.  PMIP is also being considered as a candidate protocol in
other areas of the architecture.  

I agree with folks that are advocating terminology that disambiguates
PMIP from other protocols. While the Home Agent functionality maybe
nearly identical between MIPv6 and PMIPv6 they are still different
protocols.  I'm assuming that as per goal #7 of the 'nohost' draft they
are meant to operate independently and that the use of one does not
preclude the use of the other. (Although, per the current draft, I am
not sure if both can operate at the same time - but that is a different
topic.) As a consequence each protocol may end up serving a different
purpose in the end architecture, and therefore clearer terminology would
help the discussions.

Cheers
Barney

-----Original Message-----
From: Chowdhury, Kuntal [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:59 AM
To: Barnowski, Barnaba (WIC:2T00); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Terminology confusion in

Barney,

-Kuntal

discussion
issue
3GPP2
MIP
interaction

> very similar, if not the same.

"This email message and any attachments are confidential information of
Starent Networks, Corp. The information transmitted may not be used to
create or change any contractual obligations of Starent Networks, Corp.
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of
any action in reliance upon this e-mail and its attachments by persons
or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately -- by
replying to this message or by sending an email to
[email-masked] -- and destroy all copies of this message
and any attachments without reading or disclosing their contents. Thank
you."

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:43:23 -0800 (PST)

This is not the same as PMIP6 at several levels. For one, the signaling
endpoints are different in the MIP6 and PMIP6 cases. When NEMO and MIP6
are used, the MN and HA are always the two signaling endpoints - not the
case when MIP6 and PMIP6 are used together. Secondly, it is feasible for
the MIP6 HoA or the MIP6 CoA to be served by PMIP6, transparent to the
MN. And depending on which address is served by PMIP6, the LMA (PMIP HA
as the draft calls it) may or may not be the same entity as the MIP6 HA.

[Behcet]  Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) has architectural implications that are different than HA. There is one or more LMA in each so called netlmm domain, e.g. cellular access network. However there is a single centralized HA per MN.
If we would like to draw similarities, netlmm DT solution is similar to HMIP not MIP and LMA is similar to MAP not HA. draft-sgundave defines PMIPv6 with a central HA no matter which access network the MN is connected to. draft-singh defines P-HMIPv6 among other things.

[Behcet] Regarding the current WG documents, I believe that PS document and requirements documents would apply to draft-sgundave. draft-ietf-netlmm-threats-04.txt as far as I can tell is too much tied to netlmm DT solution and I don't think it applies to s-gundave. 
What do you say Christian?
But then do we need a threats document for PMIPv6 solution?

Regards,

--Behcet

sorry I deleted the rest with all respect.

---

From: "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:39:46 -0500

> purpose in the end architecture, and therefore clearer terminology
would

Barney, I am confused with your statement above. It seems you are not
sure whether the current draft precluded PMIP6 and CMIP6 simultaneous
operation or not....but w/o attempting to make sure that is indeed the
case, you want to introduce new terminology!

-Kuntal

> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:15 PM
> To: Chowdhury, Kuntal; [email-masked]