Hi Jouni, This version solves the contradiction but it gives me the impression that DMM will only work on the solution that "managing the use of care-of/home addresses in an efficient manner ". Is that correct?
Thanks. Dapeng Liu 2012/1/2, jouni korhonen <[email protected]>: > 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]. > 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 > > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
