Thanks Jari. Sounds reasonable. Will provide additional comments on the proposed charter separately.
-Basavaraj On 10/31/11 3:44 PM, "ext Jari Arkko" <[email protected]> wrote: >Basavaraj, > >It is a recharter (and a rename). We are not considering taking on >significant amount of new work (mostly just removing material from the >charter), so I do not think a BOF is needed. > >There has been little need to do work on the other extensions, and slow >progress with the specifications that do exist. I think we completed the >work that was easy to do and had demand. I think we should leave the rest >behind. As noted in the other e-mails, I can AD sponsors docs outside the >WGs directly to RFC. If there's something big that requires WG >discussion, we can always create new working groups later. For instance, >if after some time the various security alternates get enough traction, >we could consider creating a working group to standardize one. > >Jari > >On 31.10.2011 22:35, [email protected] wrote: >> 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 >> > >_______________________________________________ >MEXT mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
