Subject: Re: [netlmm] RE: [elm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 09:46:02 -0800 (PST)

Voila.

I see this mail another reason for separating IPv4 from the base PMIPv6 protocol, although it might sound contrary to what Alessio is saying.

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: "Casati, Alessio (Alessio)" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]; "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <[email-masked]>; Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 <[email-masked]>; Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>; Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>; Hidetoshi Yokota <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2007 11:30:21 AM
Subject: RE: [netlmm] RE: [elm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG

All,
 
Not only IPv4 support should be there day one, but also overlapping IPv4 addresses for users should also be supported from day one. I see private addressing schemes will not go away when IPv4 networks host the PMIPv6 HA -- forbidding private address use in customer networks may be overly restrictive. Would this require using an encapsulation mechanism like GRE (RFC 2784) + Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE (RFC 2890 )? Any better proposals?
 
Alessio

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 09 March 2007 16:11
To: Chowdhury, Kuntal; Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Basavaraj Patil; Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi Yokota
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] RE: [elm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG

Ajoy, Alex, Kuntal,
 
PMIPv6 need to support IPv4 and IPv6 addressing as well as IPv4 and IPv6 transport. This will allow enough flexibility and options for SDOs to standardize in timely manner. It is upto network operator what option to deploy.  
 
Lalit 

From: Chowdhury, Kuntal [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Fri 3/9/2007 7:57 AM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Kotecha, Lalit ; Basavaraj Patil; Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi Yokota
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [netlmm] RE: [elm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG

________________________________________
From: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:51 AM
To: [email-masked]; Basavaraj Patil; Chowdhury, Kuntal; Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi Yokota
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG

Hi, Lalit,
 
Thanks for your comments. Sure,  I believe that we are on track with respect to timeline.
We should be able to meet the quality as well as timeline. We just need some more 
co-ordination between two drafts. I myself is very interested to get the
work done in timely manner. But let us make the solution good enough so that various SDOs
will find it both usable and compelling.  One way to focus on this solution will be to standardize
IPv6 only support and focus on IPv4 support in seperate document.
 
KC> I don't think we should take the IPv4 support out of the base spec. It is very important that the base spec supports IPv4 and IPv6 (addressing and transport) so that a comprehensive solution is available ASAP. The draft-sgundave has this support, and I don't believe we need to take this out.

-Kuntal

Regards,
Ajoy

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 8:59 AM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Basavaraj Patil; Chowdhury, Kuntal; Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi Yokota
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG
Ajoy and others
 
Timeline for availability of IETF PMIP protocol is extremely important. Your comment about quality of protocol is agreed as long as it meets the timeline. Group could agree on base protocol and come up enhancement list to be worked on as part of the netLMM WG item. If IETF PMIP protocol is not available at the right time, some SDOs may choose other non-IETF protocol, instead
 
Regards
Lalit
________________________________________
From: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thu 3/8/2007 2:17 PM
To: Basavaraj Patil; Chowdhury, Kuntal; Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi Yokota
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [netlmm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG
Hi, Raj,

Thanks for your response. Please find my inline responses.

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: Basavaraj Patil [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:22 PM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; Chowdhury, Kuntal; Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi
Yokota
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG

Ajoy et al,

This discussion on which SDOs have expressed interest in PMIP6 and what
is the timeline for it being available is not really productive.

Ajoy-> Agreed. I was trying to clarify this because there was some
confusion on the list.

If the same energies were spent on analysing the I-Ds and discussing
technical content we would be making forward progress (instead of the
current state where we debate endlessly on issues that do not result in
the work moving forward).

Ajoy-> Absolutely. We need to review technical contents of various docs
and make objective assessment. 
I think we have been making good progress. We have been updating draft
based upon mailing list consensus and discussion.

IMO, we in the IETF are responsible for specifying a protocol for
Netlmm.
How the SDOs use the specification is not our concern. If the SDOs have
some specific requirements for a netlmm protocol, they can just as well
make them known in the netlmm WG. There really is no value in finding
out what any of the SDOs opinion is about any of these drafts, because
the netlmm WG is not going to make a choice based on what another
external SDO prefers or thinks.

Ajoy-> I am not sure if I agree with this. If the customer of our
protocol is various SDOs, we will have to care about their requirements.

Also, we will also have to know how a given protocol will be used by
various SDOs. If we do not make such assumption, we will end-up defining
incompatible protocol.
Incompatible protocol is not going to help anyone.

People from the SDOs are just as welcome to express their views in the
netlmm WG where the discussion is open.

Ajoy-> Sure

Regarding the timeline for when this work can be completed, I think we
can stop speculating about it and instead let the chairs make a
determination.
The charters goals will no doubt need to be revised because the current
milestones are not aligned with the changes that have occurred since
IETF67.

Ajoy-> Sure, I care about quality of protocol. We should not compromise
quality for timeline.

-Raj

On 3/8/07 1:56 PM, "ext Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I agree that SDOs are interested in PMIPv6 protocol.
> However, it is not clear to me that enough discussion has taken place
> in SDOs about details of both proposals being discussed in IETF.
> As far as I am aware, WIMAX Forum is targeting to discuss both drafts
> in
>
> next planery call.
>
> Regards,
> Ajoy
> 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chowdhury, Kuntal [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:13 AM
> To: Alexandru Petrescu; Hidetoshi Yokota
> Cc: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [netlmm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG
>
> All three wireless SDOs have expressed interest in PMIP6 based
solution.
> Besides 3GPP2, WiMAX Forum also sent a communication to IETF regarding

> this requirement. 3GPP SAE (TS 23.402/TR 23.882) has dependencies on
> PMIP6. See 3GPP dependency list for more info.
>
> This is certainly not a 1-3 year project. If PMIP6 spec does not come
> out of IETF in 2007, every SDOs publication schedule will be impacted.
> So, moving fast on the base draft is the most important task for the
> netlmm WG, IMHO.
>
> -Kuntal
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:26 AM
>> To: Hidetoshi Yokota
>> Cc: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked]
>> Subject: [netlmm] Re: SDOs and NETLMM WG
>>
>> Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
>>>> Currently, only 3GPP2 TSG-X has made a statement relayed through
>>>> our liaison.  That statement talks about need to do proxy mobile ip
>
>>>> based solution.  It says nothing about the timeliness needed.  See
>>>> the PostScriptum with the relevant mail.
>>>
>>> If liaison statements from other SDOs could speed up the IETF
> process
>>> by stating the timeline, then they would probably do so. But I don't
>
>>> think IETF works that way... (I may be wrong, though)
>>
>> Right.  So what is the timeline you think these SDOs expect?  3years
> is
>> fine?  1year is necessary?
>>
>> Just saying SDO needs this quick gives no hint about how we could
> plan.
>>
>>>> At the same time, the NETLMM WG has not made any statement back to
>
>>>> 3GPP through our liaison.
>>>>
>>>> If I'm to interpret the request from 3GPP technically I consider
>>>> the draft-singh much more appropriated to 3GPP needs (has PMIP
>>>> client relocation) than draft-sgundave (has not).
>>>
>>> This type of relocation would also be beneficial for 3GPP2, but my
>>> take is that this can be regarded as an extension to the base
>>> protocol.
>>
>> It can.  The minimal conditions between the two is to refer to each
>> other.  HEre's one example:
>>
>> draft-sgundave:
>>> When the mobile node attaches to an access link connected to the
>>> mobile access gateway, the mobile node presents its identity, MN-
>>> Identifier, as part of the access access authentication procedure.
>>> After a successful access authentication, the mobile access gateway
>>> obtains the mobile node's profile from the policy store, such as
> from
>>>  a AAA infrastructure.  The mobile access gatway would have all the
>>> information for it to emulate the mobile node's home network on the
>>> access link.  The mobile access gateway also starts sending periodic
>
>>> Router Advertisements to the mobile node advertising its home
> network
>>>  prefix.
>>
>>
>> draft-singh:
>>> 2. After receiving the prefix as part of the router advertisement
>>> from MAG1, the MN attempts to acquire another IP address, called the
>
>>> Proxy Home Address (pHoA) associated with the advertised prefix. The
>
>>> MN issues a DHCP request and a DHCP server assigns a pHoA consistent
>
>>> with the advertised prefix.
>>
>> One uses DHCP the other uses RA.  For one the other is in Appendix.
> So
>> should these be combined?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security
>> System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netlmm mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

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

The information contained in this message and any attachment may be
proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work
product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure.  If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all
copies and backups thereof.  Thank you.

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

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

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