Hi Dapeng,
On Jan 9, 2012, at 10:34 AM, liu dapeng wrote: > 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? No. The beginning sentence you cited says: "Solutions may also focus specifically on managing the use of care-of address.." Current text "may also focus" does not restrict the scope only for CoA/HoA management. - Jouni > > 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
