MIP4 WG meeting, IETF 66 ------------------------ Document Status --------------- draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis Waiting for Charlie to revise the document. Charlie: I had a revision ready a while a go but technical problems prevented me to publish it. I will summarize the changes and publish them soon and publish the revision soon draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution Completed WG last call. Ready to be sent to the IESG. draft-ietf-mip4-fmipv4 Ready for WGLC draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext Ready for WGLC draft-ietf-mip4-message-string-ext Under WG last call. some changes needed Henrik proposed some text. Kent requests to get approval for the text on the list draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity Some comments received during the first last call. second last call needed. draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements Ready for WGLC. Concerns about the need for 31 RADIUS attributes. Radext needs to do something before anything proceed. Aboba commented that the radius AVP space has to be extended Jari: AVP space is not exchausted but it will be considering what is in the pipeline. The AVP has to be extended somehow. Jari: Yes, radext needs to do something. Kent: this is a requirements document. Not the document that is defining the attributes draft-ietf-mip4-reg-tunnel With the AD, but has expired. Will be resubmitted next week draft-ietf-mip4-rfc2006bis New revision out draft-ietf-mip4-faerr draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis draft-ietf-mobileip-lowlatency-handoffs-v4 Approved, in RFC Editor's queue New charter proposals --------------------- 1. Carrying IPv6 in MIPv4 Jari: It has been proposed to add IPv6 carrying capability to MIPv4, based on draft-tsirtsis-v4v6-mipv4 . This was approved by the IESG about 2 weeks ago, on June 29. George - Jari had a few questions on the mailing list about scoping the work Jari - It is related to the problem statement. On whether a problem statement is needed George - there is a dsmip problem statement common to both DS-MIPv4 and DS-MIPv6 in the MIP6 WG Vijay - dsmip problem statement only argues that running MIPv4 and MIPv6 at the same time is not a good idea. Does not really try to justify the extension to MIPv4 to add the capability to carry IPv6 traffic. Specifically it does not describe the scenarios in which it is useful to tunnel IPv6 over MIPv4 Hesham - ? Jari - Problem statement should be done. Could be in the MIP6 WG. 2. MIPv4 based Moving Network (NEMO) support George: Nemov4 basic was defined in the NEMO WG. NEMO WG is mainly IPv6. It was ok with one item, but does not want to take on NEMOv4 extensions. The problem is that base NEMOv4 spec does not support foreign agent or prefix allocation. These are minor extensions and can be done quickly in the MIPv4 WG Vidya - the base NEMOv4 spec will work with foreign agents but work unoptimized George - correct Viday - Very minor work. can be reviewed both by NEMO and MIP4 WGs. Henrik - Does not care whether this is done in NEMO or MIPv4. NEMOv4 base seems to be informational. Question is should NEMOv4 be informational or standards track Kent - Support moving base NEMOv4 here to MIP4 WG and do these small enhancements at the same time. Vidya - Support doing NEMOv4 as standards track in the MIP4 WG. Move the base draft here. George - Supports it. Jari - What kind of deployments plans or business interests exist for this? George - ?? Kent - Cisco has been shipping mobile routers for a while now. This work started because other companies wanted to standardize this. Alexandru Petresecu - We have customers for this. Regarding where to do this, the base NEMOv4 document is going for WG last call in the NEMO WG again. so we need to decide soon. Henrik - We are missing one thing. Carrying V4 NEMO traffic over NAT. Have you looked at this? George - Have looked at it. Nothing more is needed. Sri Gundavelli - Shouldn't be a problem. Alexandru - MIPv4 NAT traversal should be sufficient. Charlie - How is prefix ownership addressed in NEMOv6? Vijay - Problem still exists. Route Optimization for NEMOv6 is not addressed. George - Prefix assignment done exactly like home address allocation. Pete - Looks like there is consensus to take on these items. Will be added to the new charter proposal. George - What about base NEMOv4? Henrik - will talk to the NEMO WG chairs and the AD and decide. 3. Generic notification mechanism Sri Gundavelli presented the mechanism in the draft. Henrik - does not think this is useful for NEMO prefix delegation. Other cases like registration revocation make sense. Proposed to re-work the registration revocation mechanism to use this mechanism. Sri - Agrees Henrik - will be good to get reviews George - Thinks this is a good idea. Take it on as a MIP4 WG item.