Hi Jouni, > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of jouni korhonen > Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 2:45 AM > To: liu dapeng > Cc: [email protected] Laganier; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter > > Dapeng, > > Below is the charter text that was submitted to the next > IESG. Does it cover all your concerns? > > - JOuni > > > > Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) > ------------------------------------- > > Charter > > Current Status: Active > > Chairs: > Julien Laganier <[email protected]> > Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> > > Internet Area Directors: > Ralph Droms <[email protected]> > Jari Arkko <[email protected]> > > Internet Area Advisor: > Jari Arkko <[email protected]> > > Mailing Lists: > General Discussion: [email protected] > To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext > > Description of Working Group: > > The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group specifies IP > mobility, access network and routing solutions, which allow for > setting up IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an > optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed anchors to manage > IP mobility sessions. The distributed mobility management solutions > aim for transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of > active transport level sessions as mobile hosts or entire mobile > networks change their point of attachment to the Internet. > > The protocol solutions should be based on existing IP mobility > protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6 > [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and NEMO > [RFC3963].
I don't understand the "should be based on existing IP mobility protocols". IRON for example provides an alternative mobility management solution which I believe has significant advantages over other approaches: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironbis-10 Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Solutions may also focus specifically on managing the use of care-of > versus home addresses in an efficient manner for different types of > communications. > > Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) and/or prefix(es) > and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile > hosts/routers > change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is not a strict > requirement. Mobile hosts/routers should not assume that IP > addressing including home address(es) and/or home network prefix(es) > remain the same throughout the entire upper level session lifetime, > or that support for mobility functions is provided on the > network side > in all conditions. > > The distributed mobility management solutions primarily target IPv6 > Deployment and should not be tailored specifically to support IPv4, > in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs > are used. At least IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile > host/router and the access networks. Independent of the distributed > mobility management solution, backward compatibility must be > maintained. If the network or the mobile host/router do not support > the distributed mobility management enabling protocol, nothing should > break. > > Work items related to the distributed mobility management include: > > o Solution Requirements: Define precisely the problem of distributed > mobility management and identity the requirements for a distributed > mobility management solution. > > o Best practices: Document best practices for the deployment > of existing > mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management > environment. > > o Gap Analysis and extensions: identify the limitations in the best > current practices with respect to providing the expected > functionality. > > o If limitations are identified as part of the above deliverable, > specify extensions to existing protocols that removes these > limitations within a distributed mobility management environment. > > Goals and Milestones: > > Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' as a working group > document. To be Informational RFC. > Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' as a working > group document. To be Informational RFC. > Nov 2012 - Evaluate the need for additional working group document(s) > for extensions to fill the identified gaps. > Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' to the IESG for > consideration as an Informational RFC. > Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Best practices ' to the IESG forvconsideration > as an Informational RFC. > Mar 2013 - Submit I-D 'Gap Analysis' to the IESG for consideration as > an Informational RFC. > Mar 2013 - Evaluate the need for further work based on the identified > gaps and revise the milestones and/or the charter of the > group. > > > > > On Dec 21, 2011, at 7:53 PM, liu dapeng wrote: > > > 2011/12/14, jouni korhonen <[email protected]>: > >> Folks, > >> > >> We have been working on a charter text from DMM based on > the initial goal > >> setting and the input we received during the Taipei > meeting. Note that this > >> is the first draft and now we are soliciting for input. > >> > >> - Jouni & Julien > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > >> > >> Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) > >> ------------------------------------- > >> > >> Charter > >> > >> Current Status: Active > >> > >> Chairs: > >> Julien Laganier <[email protected]> > >> Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> > >> > >> Internet Area Directors: > >> Ralph Droms <[email protected]> > >> Jari Arkko <[email protected]> > >> > >> Internet Area Advisor: > >> Jari Arkko <[email protected]> > >> > >> Mailing Lists: > >> General Discussion: [email protected] > >> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >> Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext > >> > >> Description of Working Group: > >> > >> The Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group > specifies IP > >> mobility, access network and routing solutions, which allow for > >> setting up IP networks so that traffic is distributed in an > >> optimal way and does not rely on centrally deployed > anchors to manage > >> IP mobility sessions. The distributed mobility management > solutions > >> aim for transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of > >> active transport level sessions as mobile hosts or entire mobile > >> networks change their point of attachment to the Internet. > > > > [Comment] > > > > This point seems not specific to DMM, since all IP mobility protocol > > aim for transparency above IP layer. And the point (maintenance of > > active transport level sessions) contradicts with : "it is not a > > strict requirement to maintenance stable IP address" (later in the > > charter). Or does it mean that DMM aims to develop > solutions that can > > maintain active transport level sessions without > maintaining stable IP > > address? > > > > > >> The protocol solutions should be enhancements to existing > IP mobility > >> protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6 > >> [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and > >> NEMO [RFC3963]. Alternatively, the distributed mobility management > >> solution can be transparent to any underlying IP mobility > protocol. > >> Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) > and/or prefix(es) > >> and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile > hosts/routers > >> change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is > not a strict > >> requirement. > > > > [comment] > > please refer the previous comment. > > I think we should not exclude the solutions that can > maintain stable IP address. > > > > > > > > Mobile hosts/routers should not assume that IP > >> addressing including home address(es) and/or home network > prefix(es) > >> remain the same throughout the entire upper level session > lifetime. > >> > >> The distributed mobility management solutions primarily > target IPv6 > >> Deployment and should not be tailored specifically to > support IPv4, > >> in particular in situations where private IPv4 addresses > and/or NATs > >> are used. > > > > [comment] Since DMM remains backward compatibility with existing IP > > mobility protocol. And DSMIPv6 can support IPv4, should we also need > > to keep IPv4 support in DMM? > > > > > > At least IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile > >> host/router and the access networks. Independent of the > distributed > >> mobility management solution, backward compatibility must be > >> maintained. If the network or the mobile host/router do > not support > >> the distributed mobility management enabling protocol, > nothing should > >> break. > >> > >> Work items related to the distributed mobility management include: > >> > >> o Solution Requirements: Define precisely the problem of > distributed > >> mobility management and identity the requirements for a > distributed > >> mobility management solution. > >> > >> o Best practices and Gap Analysis: Document best practices for the > >> deployment of existing mobility protocols in a > distributed mobility > >> management environment and identify the limitations of each such > >> approach with respect to fulfillment of the solution > requirements. > >> > >> o If limitations are identified as part of the above deliverable, > >> specify extensions to existing protocols that removes these > >> limitations within a distributed mobility management > environment. > >> > >> Goals and Milestones: > >> > >> Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' as a working > >> group document. To be Informational RFC. > >> Aug 2012 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' > as a working > >> group document. To be Informational RFC. > >> Nov 2012 - Evaluate the need for additional working group > document(s) > >> for extensions to fill the identified gaps. > >> Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Solution Requirements' to the IESG for > >> consideration as an Informational RFC. > >> Jan 2013 - Submit I-D 'Best practices and Gap Analysis' > to the IESG for > >> consideration as an Informational RFC. > >> Mar 2013 - Conclude the working group or re-charter. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> MEXT mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > ------ > > Best Regards, > > Dapeng Liu > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
