Subject: [netlmm] IPv4 Support

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:50:05 -0700

All,
There has been a lot of debate on whether or not IPv4 support should be
specified as part of the base specification. The charter puts IPv4 out
of scope, while the goals document is somewhat ambiguous about IPv4
support.  However, given the reality of IPv4 MNs and infrastructure out
there, I had posted an email last month, asking what the WG felt about
IPv4 MN and data tunnel support. From all the responses we received, it
appeared that almost everyone was generally supportive of specifying
such IPv4 support, but, the opinion on whether or not it should be part
of the base spec was split. 

One thing to specifically note is that IPv4 signaling support is not a
goal - the WG made the choice that the signaling protocol will be based
on IPv6, when a protocol based on MIP6 was chosen as the path and this
discussion is not an attempt to revisit that decision. 

Given the general consensus for providing IPv4 MN and data tunnel
support, the charter is not a limiting factor. I have checked with Jari
on this topic and he is open to the group specifying such IPv4 support
even though the charter puts it out of scope. 

We will discuss the details of IPv4 support in Prague.  To some extent,
the decision on whether this can be part of the base spec or not should
be based on the complexity of the solution.  But, I'd like to request
that we don't make this point of debate in the consensus call for
document adoption. 

A WG document MUST comply with WG consensus - there is simply no way
around it. So, let's focus on achieving consensus instead of spending
time on whether it is a problem that one of the current drafts has it
and the other doesn't. 

Regards,
Vidya

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

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:31:15 -0700

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:

> support, the charter is not a limiting factor. 

Why don't we update the charter to add IPv4 support?

Vijay

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:36:49 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:31 PM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] IPv4 Support
> 
> Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> 

We can do that, if need be. But, we have established that the charter
doesn't have to be the limiting factor on this point. So, that is only a
procedural thing. 

Vidya

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

---

From: Katsutoshi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:53:50 +0900

potential customers and would be best to make clear progress, i.e.
decision on WG doc, at the March meeting, otherwise we might end up with
specifying protocol for nobody.

Katsutoshi,

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:33:42 -0800
"Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> All,
> This is a consensus call to pick a WG document for PMIPv6. Please
> indicate your preference in using draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 or
> draft-singh-netlmm-protocol-01 as a starting point for the WG document.
> Please note that any document chosen as the WG document will have to
> reflect WG consensus - so, the current version need not be considered
> final by any means. If you think one or both these documents still have
> any major open issues, please state those issues on the list as well. 
> 
> Please send an email stating your preference by 23th March, 2007. If you
> don't have an adequate idea of the drafts, you may wait to see the
> presentation of the drafts at the NETLMM meeting in Prague before you
> respond to this call. 
> 
> Thanks,
> The Chairs
> 

Regards,
Katsutoshi

---

From: Katsutoshi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:53:50 +0900

Hi Vidya,

Although I know the IPv4 support is not in the charter, I do believe it
would be good to be a part of the base draft as far as having this
functionality not making the PMIPv6 specification complicated.

Regards,

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:50:05 -0700

Regards,
Katsutoshi

SG
Cc: [email-masked]

Hi Vidya,

Although I know the IPv4 support is not in the charter, I do believe it
would be good to be a part of the base draft as far as having this
functionality not making the PMIPv6 specification complicated.

Regards,

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:50:05 -0700

Regards,
Katsutoshi

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:45:51 +0100

> doesn't have to be the limiting factor on this point. So, that is only a

When you update the Charter, why don't you let place for other than 
DS-MIPv6 for IPv4 solution?

This _is_ a procedural matter.

Alex

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:48:45 +0100

> functionality not making the PMIPv6 specification complicated.

What kind of IPv4 support would you like to see?

Would you prefer DS-MIPv6 IPv4 support?  Or do you prefer WiMax-backed 
other transition mechanisms TEREDO/ISATAP and 6to4?  What are the 
technical issues with both?  Depending on your needs, we can include 
them in draft-singh right away, we're open to all new items.

Can we discuss around these issues?

Thanks for your recommendation,

Alex

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:03:03 +0200

Hi all,

I wanted to explain my point of view on this matter.

First, I would personally like to see a protocol that is capable of
dealing with both IPv6 and IPv4. I think that will have a significant
impact on how widely the protocol can be deployed. And reduce problems
going forward with the support of multiple solutions for different IP
versions.

The group is not currently chartered to deal with the IPv4 part (but see
below). And I'm not necessarily ready to expand it just yet. However, I
have said in the past that once you are a bit further ahead, adding the
IPv4 to the charter is not a problem at all. I also brought this up in
the IESG back when DSMI BOF proposal was under consideration.

Nevertheless, what I told Vidya is that even with the current charter I
do not have a problem if the document supports IPv4 as well, assuming
some conditions are fulfilled.

The charter text is not arbitrary, it was written with specific
management goals in mind. In particular, the ability to complete work in
a timely manner. But it should not prevent making the right engineering
decisions, or documenting how the protocol works together with other
Mobile IPv6 extensions. For instance, I think it is fine for the
specification to say that via RFC XXXX the Netlmm protocol can run over
IPv4. So my condition for you to include IPv4 support in the base
document is that you can do it without the development of a lot of new
mechanisms or the addition of complex logic. If you can satisfy this
condition its not a problem. If you cannot, I would suggest a separate
spec and a charter extension at the same time as the base spec comes to
the IESG.

I would also like to underline what Vidya said about the nature of this
question in the WG -- this is not an opportunity to revisit previous
design decisions. And that you shouldn't tie all specific technical
questions to the selection of a particular draft. You should choose the
best draft to work on, obviously, but at the same time you will have N
technical questions that you need to decide. Such as the question about
IPv4. The results of those decisions will have to be edited into the
next revision of draft that you decide to work on.

Jari

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:53:50 +0100

Jari Arkko wrote:
>  impact on how widely the protocol can be deployed. And reduce 
> problems going forward with the support of multiple solutions for 
> different IP versions.
> 
> The group is not currently chartered to deal with the IPv4 part (but 
> see below). And I'm not necessarily ready to expand it just yet. 
> However, I have said in the past that once you are a bit further 
> ahead, adding the IPv4 to the charter is not a problem at all. I also
>  brought this up in the IESG back when DSMI BOF proposal was under 
> consideration.
> 
> Nevertheless, what I told Vidya is that even with the current charter
>  I do not have a problem if the document supports IPv4 as well, 
> assuming some conditions are fulfilled.
> 
> management goals in mind. In particular, the ability to complete work
>  in a timely manner. But it should not prevent making the right 
> engineering decisions, or documenting how the protocol works together
>  with other Mobile IPv6 extensions. For instance, I think it is fine 
> for the specification to say that via RFC XXXX the Netlmm protocol 
> can run over IPv4. So my condition for you to include IPv4 support in
>  the base document is that you can do it without the development of a
>  lot of new mechanisms or the addition of complex logic. If you can 
> satisfy this condition its not a problem.

Jari, do you think it is possible to specify a PMIPv6 that uses 6to4 as
traversal mechanism?

The answer to this is very important.  I don't want to get into a
situation where the base PMIPv6 specifies both IPv4 _and_ IPv6 and later
be told I'm not allowed to develop an IPv4-IPv6 transition mechanism
because the base spec already does IPv4 and IPv6.  This has already
happened in the past when I suggested NEMOv4 and I was told DS-MIPv6
already does NEMOv4.

> If you cannot, I would suggest a separate spec and a charter
> extension at the same time as the base spec comes to the IESG.

If it is ever to happen, or if otherwise other people think the same, I 
agree with separation of IPv4 from PMIPv6 document.  If I understand 
wrongly, please ignore.

> I would also like to underline what Vidya said about the nature of 
> this question in the WG -- this is not an opportunity to revisit 
> previous design decisions. And that you shouldn't tie all specific 
> technical questions to the selection of a particular draft. You 
> should choose the best draft to work on, obviously, but at the same 
> time you will have N technical questions that you need to decide. 
> Such as the question about IPv4. The results of those decisions will 
> have to be edited into the next revision of draft that you decide to 
> work on.

I agree with the main points.  I'm not revisiting DS-MIPv6 design. 
DS-MIPv6, _if_ it is to be revisited, it should happen in the MIP6 WG.

I totally disagree that _any_ discussion that I raise about NEMO, or 
about RO, or about IPv4, to get reflected in the base draft.

If I understand you wrongly please ingore.

Alex

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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:07:58 +0200

Alex,

> Jari, do you think it is possible to specify a PMIPv6 that uses 6to4 as

I think so.

> because the base spec already does IPv4 and IPv6.

The reality is that in this space we do have multiple things that
could be used. Some address slightly different aspects than some
others, but if its merely about transport not MIP subscription (like DSMIP)
then you have a bunch of choices.

The IETF rarely forbids anyone to employ any technology X with
another technology Y. But the working group should still make a
decision on what they recommend as the mandatory to implement
mechanisms. Its too bad if that choice does not fit all WG participants,
but its the consensus of the group that counts.

> DS-MIPv6, _if_ it is to be revisited, it should happen in the MIP6 WG.

Ok. We are in agreement on this.

> about RO, or about IPv4, to get reflected in the base draft.

I am not sure I understand your question here.

Jari

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:41:53 +0100

> I am not sure I understand your question here.

Let me turn it differently.  For example, it's not that because there's 
a NEMO Problem Statement draft, and because _maybe_ double encapsulation 
necessary, or _maybe_ selection double/simple encapsulation necessary - 
should any new text be added to the PMIPv6 sgundave draft.

In the recent past, light talk about IPv4 and how it would be needed 
was considered by authors to be support of inclusion of IPv4 in PMIPv6 
draft.  They've not considered the point where IPv4-IPv6 independence 
may actually be UDP, just like IKE.  Is IKE "version-dependent"?  No, 
it's independent, uses UDP.  If you wish, I'd like to discuss what is 
meant by a protocol supporting both IPv4 and IPv6.

IMHO PMIPv6 sgundave already deals with too many aspects.  I consider 
that 'bloat' but probably not a kind word to use - sorry, but one gets 
the feeling, too much for a base draft.  The base has too many unknowns 
too, like on what MN-AR interface, how is DHCP used, etc.

Sorry if too long explanation...

Alex

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:36:31 +0200

Alex,
>
> Let me turn it differently.  For example, it's not that because
> there's a NEMO Problem Statement draft, and because _maybe_ double
> encapsulation necessary, or _maybe_ selection double/simple
> encapsulation necessary - should any new text be added to the PMIPv6
> sgundave draft.
>

Yes. But I think you are going to an area that the chairs declared out
of scope for this discussion. I.e., going back to earlier discussions.
Don't.

> the feeling, too much for a base draft.  The base has too many
> unknowns too, like on what MN-AR interface, how is DHCP used, etc.

I am also worried about bloat.

Jari

---

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:51:33 +0900

> the IESG back when DSMI BOF proposal was under consideration.

I agree with Jari.  Actually, I tried to hold a new BoF, DSMI
(Dual Stack Moving Internet) at last IETF-67 meeting (see 
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki). But this proposal was 
withdrawn, since a base protocol was not fixed yet and IPv4 work would
be added to NETLMM charter once they are further along.

In addition, I would like to see that if a base protocol is fixed, any
extensions required for deployment (e.g, IPv4 support, handover, route 
optimization, nemo support, etc.) can be certainly discussed with
rechartering in NetLMM WG or new BoFs (like MIP6 and MIPSHOP WGs).

Regards,
Myung-Ki,