Okay.. Then I would hope that the rechartering does not throw out "the baby with the bathwater" and keep MIP6/DSMIP6 related extensions and features still in scope.
-Raj -----Original Message----- From: ext Julien Laganier [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:33 PM To: Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-CIC/Dallas) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group Hi Raj, This is a rechartering of the WG. --julien On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:47 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Jari, > > > > A couple of quick questions: > > > > 1. Is this a recharter of the MEXT WG or the formation of a new > WG to deal with DMM? If it is the latter I would be concerned that a > WG is being formed without going through the IETF BoF process. I > realize that DMM was in the scope of the MEXT WG. But proposed new > charter pretty much throws everything else w.r.t MIP6/DSMIP6 out of this new > WG. > > 2. There needs to be a WG and home for continued work w.r.t > improvements to MIP6/DSMIP6 protocol in terms of extensions, > deployability improvements etc. The proposed charter does not consider this > at all. > > > > -Basavaraj > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of ext Jari Arkko > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 7:21 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group > > > > And a follow-up on the charter. I'm describing a couple of different > takes on what the new charter could be. Comments and alternative > proposals are welcome. This is what the current charter says about DMM: > > > The working group will also work on operational considerations on > setting up Mobile IPv6 networks so that traffic is distributed > in an optimal way, for instance by using existing protocol > mechanisms > to select the closest home agents for new clients. > > Oct 2011 - Submit I-D 'Operational considerations for distributed > use of Mobile IPv6' for publication as Informational. > > Which is admittedly a bit short, but is also very concrete and > achievable, if we work on it. I got another proposal from Hui Deng > that extended this a bit, including going beyond mere operational > considerations. > > > In the past decade a fair number of mobility protocols have been > standardized. Although the protocols differ in terms of functions and > associated message format, we can identify a few key common features: > presence of a centralized mobility anchor providing global > reachability and an always-on experience extensions to optimize > handover performance while users roam across wireless cells extensions > to enable the use of heterogeneous wireless interfaces for multi-mode > terminals (e.g. cellular phones) The presence of the centralized > mobility anchor allows a mobile device to be reachable when it is not > connected to its home domain. The anchor, among other tasks, ensures > forwarding of packets destined to or sent from the mobile device. As > such, most of the deployed architectures today have a small number of > centralized anchors managing the traffic of millions of mobile > subscribers. > > To optimize handovers for mobile users, the base protocols have been > extended to efficiently handle packet forwarding between the previous > and new points of attachment. These extensions are necessary when > applications impose stringent requirements in terms of delay. Notions > of localization and distribution of local agents have been introduced > to reduce signalling overhead. Unfortunately today we witness > difficulties in getting such protocols deployed, often leading to > sub-optimal choices. Moreover, all the availability of multi-mode > devices and the possibility to use several network interfaces > simultaneously have motivated the development of more new protocol extensions. > > Mobile users are, more than ever, consuming Internet content, and > impose new requirements on mobile core networks for data traffic > delivery. When this traffic demand exceeds available capacity, service > providers need to implement new strategies such as selective traffic > offload (e.g. 3GPP work items LIPA/SIPTO) through alternative access > networks (e.g. WLAN). Moreover, the localization of content providers > closer to the Mobile/Fixed Internet Service Providers network requires > taking into account local Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) while providing > mobility services. > > As long as demand exceeds capacity, both offloading and CDN techniques > could benefit from the development of more flat mobile architectures > (i.e., fewer levels of routing hierarchy introduced into the data path > by the mobility management system). This view is reinforced by the > shift in users' traffic behaviour, aimed at increasing direct > communications among peers in the same geographical area. The > development of truly flat mobile architectures would result in > anchoring the traffic closer to point of attachment of the user and > overcoming the suboptimal routing issues of a centralized mobility scheme. > > While deploying today's mobile networks, service providers face new > challenges. More often than not, mobile devices remain attached to the > same point of attachment, in which case specific IP mobility > management support is not required for applications that launch and > complete while connected to the same point of attachment. However, the > mobility support has been designed to be always on and to maintain the > context for each mobile subscriber as long as they are connected to > the network. This can result in a waste of resources and ever-increasing > costs for the service provider. > Infrequent mobility and intelligence of many applications suggest that > mobility can be provided dynamically, thus simplifying the context > maintained in the different nodes of the mobile network. > > The proposed charter will address two complementary aspects of > mobility management procedures: the distribution of mobility anchors > to achieve a more flat design and the dynamic activation/deactivation > of mobility protocol support as an enabler to distributed mobility > management. The former has the goal of positioning mobility anchors > (HA, LMA) closer to the user; ideally, these mobility anchors could be > collocated with the first hop router. The latter, facilitated by the > distribution of mobility anchors, aims at identifying when mobility > must be activated and identifying sessions that do not impose mobility > management -- thus reducing the amount of state information to be > maintained in the various mobility anchors of the mobile network. The > key idea is that dynamic mobility management relaxes some constraints > while also repositioning mobility anchors; it avoids the establishment > of non optimal tunnels between two anchors topologically distant. > > Considering the above, the working group will: > > Define the problem statement and associated requirements for > distributed mobility management. This work aims at defining the > problem space and identifies the key functional requirements. > > Produce a gap analysis mapping the above requirements against existing > solutions. > > Give best practices for the deployment of existing mobility protocols > in a distributed mobility management and describe limitations of each > such approach. > > Describe extensions, if needed, to current mobility protocols for > their application in distributed mobility architectures > > Comments? > > Jari > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
