Minutes for the NSIIM BOF at the 56th IETF (San Francisco) Next steps in IP mobility Minutes by: Eva Gustafsson <eva.gustafsson@ericsson.com>, Spencer Dawkins (spencer@mcsr-labs.org) with minor edits by Gabriel Montenegro (gab@sun.com). Tuesday, March 18 at 1300-1400 ================================ CHAIRS: Phil Roberts <proberts@megisto.com> Basavaraj Patil <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> Gabriel Montenegro <gab@sun.com> DESCRIPTION: The Mobile IP working group has defined basic mobility and associated specifications for IPv4 and is at the verge of finishing the base specification for IPv6. Mailing list information: mipcharter-request@sunroof.eng.sun.com (to subscribe) mipcharter@sunroof.eng.sun.com (to post) ----------------------------- Next Steps in IP Mobility BoF ----------------------------- Raj Patil presented the scope of the BOF: MIP WG has existed since 1991; time to make some changes BoF is proposing a charter and opening for discussion - minimal presentations. Scope of IP mobility in NSIIM: - movement with respect to an existing and stable infrastructure, L3 mobility - baseline for IP mobility (MIPv4 & MIPv6) - NSIIM is not: MANET, NEMO, PANA/AAA, L2 mobility Goals of BOF: - rethink & focus on IETF efforts on IP mobility - means prioritization of IP mobility topics, focus on 'E' aspect of IETF, separate mobility work for IPv4 & IPv6 - identify what IRTF should do on IP mobility Proposal: - create MIP4 WG (mobility in IPv4 networks, operator & deployment issues, requirements from other SDOs) - create MIP6 WG (mobility in IPv6 networks, deployment challenges & growing pains) MIP4: MIPv4 currently in deployment phase, advance base protocols & few other ideas to DS, VPN solution for MIPv4, MIB other items of interest: dynamic HA assignment, HA reliability MIP6: optimizations of base protocol, reliability of HAs, bootstrapping MIPv6 SAa, alternatives to RR based RO, hierarchical MIPv6, fast HOs, MIB other items of interest: AAA-MIPv6 interaction IRTF: form a research community similar to TCP research community, enable comparison of research results, simulations IRTF group on IP mobility will not study revolutionary or radically new architectures for IP mobility James Kempf: IRTF should be encouraged to look at new architectures Vern Paxson: this is what the IRTF group spinning out from this should do, not IRTF in general Next steps: - discuss charter details on mailing list - send charters to IESG mid-april - IRTF work for IP mobility - target: two WGs at IETF 57 Discussion Tim Shepard: Fine idea to split MIP WG. Suggests to call new WGs something other than Mobile IP, since there are other ways to achieve mobility than MIP, other stories of mobility that work in MIP WG does not address (SCTP, HIP...). Maybe too late to change name, but at least in chartering define exactly what kind of mobility scenarios you mean. Raj Patil: Agree that there are other mobility models, but baseline for work here is MIPv4 & MIPv6 Gabriel Montenegro: L3 mobility as name? Tim Shepard: No, there are other examples of L3 mobility (HIP), would make it difficult for other solutions with their own niches Gabriel Montenegro: Point taken, will work on "truth in advertising" James Kempf: Group should be named MIP specifically because it deals with MIP, tied down to ongoing work in MIP WGs. Also, discussion on list about splitting scenarios, list is now dominated by base spec discussion. Makes more sense on v6 side to have two WGs: (1) base, (2) HMIP, FMIP, location privacy... so that people not discussing base protocol have a place to discuss their things. Broad group stuff doesn't get done. Raj Patil: Intent here to determine what things are critical, what people are interested in working on, what is useful to be worked on in IETF, find out levels of interest for location privacy etc. James Kempf: Work would be done more quickly, if list not overloaded with other stuff Gabriel Montenegro: Base v6 spec should be shipped pretty soon; list traffic around it should decrease James Kempf: Other stuff around it; people will start discussing it again. Another group could focus specifically on other issues Charlie Perkins: Comment on naming; MIP pretty much is what it says, charter to say this is the area we are focusing on, make it very specific, truth in advertising important (should spend some time on this), fast handover pretty much fits in, would like to see it stay in. If later we see work can't be done, we can fix it then; don't need to split (Jims proposal) now; focus on deployment in both WGs. Frustration over what's been going on in MIPv6 lately, would like the WG to be able to focus on whatever is the best technology, focus on what IP should do... [Charlie then clarified: Of all the various reasons for frustration, this remark was was specifically about the prospect of trying to solve so many _other_ problems within the [mobile-ip] working group.] Nick Moore: Mailing list volume problem could be solved (in part) by splitting mailing list rather than splitting entire WG (MIP6). Do v6 optimization in IRTF? Gabriel Montenegro: No, ongoing work in IETF. IRFT we want to help us evaluate and compare different solutions/protocols; something like the TCP community does, common set of parameters to evaluate among competing proposals. Nick Moore: Very important to get v6 base spec out Hesham Soliman: IRTF comment, agrees that it makes lot of sense (common parameters to evaluate), think split suggestion is fine, hard to talk about other things than base spec during last months, now mails are reducing. AAA interactions; don't think we need to do anything in this area. PANA, AAA,... to work on this; like to keep MIPv6 end-to-end as it is now and not integrate with AAA Erik Nordmark: Movement detection as well? Raj Patil: Part of base spec, will be worked on as part of optimization to enhance base spec Gopal Dommety: Great to split WGs, keep it extremely focused, take top-5 problems, keep rest in IRTF or something, focus more on operator & deployment issues to get faster results Thomas Narten: Small WGs generally better than large, but split so that not too small (isolated work). Find right way, what do we think will happen to base spec next year? Would really benefit from being split up in 4-5 smaller docs, easier to review, easier to manage, should start this soon (but maybe wait a while before restarting things all over again) Raj Patil: Need focus, prioitize with timeline no longer than one year, more realistic to get things done Thomas Narten: Agree on one-year milestone plan Gabriel Montenegro: Maybe counterproductive to split into too many WGs, we want the people in one room Charlie Perkins: Dissenting opinion on one-year timeline, means IPv6 in unrealistic (neighbor discovery, everything in IETF).... Thomas Narten: Working group milestones should target delivery dates within a year, anything beyond that is just not a realistic milestone. Now, in spite of this, the completion of the work may actually take longer, and that's probably ok. Charlie Perkins: Sounds a lot more reasonable. Also recognize communities involved, synergies; split out fast HOs into separate WG would generate more meetings for the same people to attend. About AAA; AAA WG busy & not interested in IPv6, recognize the community who is going to do the work... Thomas Narten: AAA WG has priorities, does not mean they will not do the work, will take on new work later on Charlie Perkins: Right, we need to look at the way things are today, we could do the work here and then transfer the work to their working group whenever they felt it became relevant to their charter.. James Kempf: MIPv4-v6 interaction is missing. AAA yes, there is some work that needs to be done in MIP, protocol solution or set of requirements? We should start it and hand it off to WG when they have time. Also, need strong chair for IRTF WG (and strongly agrees with it) Raj Patil: ngtrans, v6ops rather for MIPv4-v6 interaction James Kempf: But we really need to understand what the issues are; we cannot just ignore and hope someone else will take care of it Raj Patil: Has not seen any significant interest in this... Nick Moore: Split MIPv6 spec sounds good, but then we need separate mailing lists Raj Patil: Same people reading all these emails Nick Moore: Yes, but difficult to follow threads. Is for tighter charter, but need some room to look at new ideas, ex. different types of optimizations Raj Patil: Suggest text to discuss on charter list Hesham Soliman: Contradictions; split into smaller groups but take on work that actually should be done in other WGs. About MIPv4-v6 interaction, there is definitely interest in this, v6ops is not looking at mobility at all Pekka Nikander: See seven bullets for MIP6 and that's quite enough. We don't need to solve everything with Mobile IP (just because we have it), like to see some space somewhere in IRTF for alternatives Thomas Narten: AAA WG owns AAA stuff, if there is work needing to be done, make problem statement and take it to AAA WG. First define problem, then decide where it should be done Gopal Dommety: Take on hierarchical working system; split into v4 & v6 WGs, then let these WGs discuss whether to split further Kent Leung: Agree, create aliases for specific topics good, MIPv4-v6 transition & interoperability is important, needs to be addressed both from v4 and v6 perspective Terry Davis: Concerned about route optimization handing off aircrafts from one continent to another, how do we do route optimize on a global basis? Charlie Perkins: There has been interest in AAA-MIPv6 proposal. Took it to AAA WG, they asked whether v6 people are interested. The IPv6 WG said yes, AAA WG again, said they're too busy. MIPv6 appplication for Diameter almost same case as for Diameter-MIPv4, there is interest but not able to focus in specific place here Mary Barnes: SIP split into SIP & SIPPING worked out fine, mailing list thing may sound trivial but it's really good Hesham Soliman: If AAA stuff is to be added to charter could we first define the problem? Also, six years ago, we decided Mobile IP was working so we use that. This was not done ad hoc, there was work that took us to where we are today Pekka Nikander: Problem 6 years back was different problem than we are facing now Will Ivancic (NASA Glenn): Have been deploying Mobile IP. AAA is next thing, interesting... Rajeev Koodli: Fast HOs, MN is in charge, common denominator with base MIPv6. Investigate alternatives to route opt? Yes, but in other place.... Gabriel Montenegro: Take to IRTF separation of locator & identifier (for example), what we want to do right now... We see consensus for dividing into MIP4 & MIP6. Next step may be to discuss further division of MIP6. |