From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Thu Oct 6 13:41:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC2811E80B5 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 13:41:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.735 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aRZPBRgwZBnI for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 13:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6B611E8073 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 13:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p96KiJnR017885; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 23:44:21 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 6 Oct 2011 23:44:19 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.61) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:44:18 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.61]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 22:44:18 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: Short WGLC: draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6-05 Thread-Index: AQHMhGi3k821Y5aQgEqakcFNaebCMQ== Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 20:44:17 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [173.74.219.186] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0F725BBA018AE6419ED209B34EE12F0E@nokia.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2011 20:44:19.0049 (UTC) FILETIME=[B84E0D90:01CC8468] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6@tools.ietf.org Subject: [netext] Short WGLC: draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6-05 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:41:12 -0000 Hello, This is the second working group last call for this I-D. It has gone through a WG LC which ended on July 12th of this year. Further edits and updates have been made to the I-D and hence this is a short 1 week long WG last call. =20 I-D: RADIUS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6-05 Abstract: This document defines new attributes to facilitate Proxy Mobile IPv6 operations using the RADIUS infrastructure. The protocol defined in this document uses Radius based interfaces of the mobile access gateway and the local mobility anchor with the AAA server for authentication, authorization and policy functions. The RADIUS interactions between the mobile access gateway and the RADIUS-based AAA server take place when the Mobile Node attaches, authenticates and authorizes to a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain. Furthermore, this document defines the RADIUS-based interface between the local mobility anchor and the AAA RADIUS server for authorizing received Proxy Binding Update messages for the mobile node's mobility session. In addition to the mobility session setup related interactions, this document defines the baseline for the mobile access gateway and the local mobility anchor generated accounting. The I-D is intended for publication as a proposed standard. The deadline for receiving comments (i.e end of WG LC) is October 14th, 2011.=20 Please send your review comments to the mailing list or authors. -Chairs From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Wed Oct 12 09:42:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384DC21F8CC7 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:42:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zugpHom99mGr for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-sa01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F8821F8BA8 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh104.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.30]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p9CGgK86028752; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:42:21 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:42:20 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.59) by NOK-AM1MHUB-04.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:42:08 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.59]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:42:07 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04 Thread-Index: AcxGcYt8Segd5A1bSEOc4ChY6g6NHQtVxdiABT6klwA= Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:42:06 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4E724ABD.4080408@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [173.74.219.186] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2CEB69022A9E8B49B7342239F3C2C0BC@nokia.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2011 16:42:20.0822 (UTC) FILETIME=[E93EEB60:01CC88FD] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr@tools.ietf.org, netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:42:26 -0000 Suresh/I-D authors, Is there a resolution to this issue? Can you please propose text that the WG can agree on and we will then move forward. -Raj On 9/15/11 1:58 PM, "ext Suresh Krishnan" wrote: >>11. >>> The tunnel between the MAGs is assumed to be established by means >>> outside the scope of this document. >> =20 >>It would be useful to at least provide some examples of the tunnel >>establishment between MAGs from a completeness perspective. It looks >>like handwaving at the moment. > >I agree with you that it is handwavy, but I am not sure what to add >here. People wanted all kinds of tunnels here, IPv6, IPv4, GRE, USP, >IPsec etc. with either manual or dynamic creation. If you want a >specific scenario, I could add it here but if I remember correctly we >did not even manage to get consensus among the authors. From rkoodli@cisco.com Wed Oct 12 09:57:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ACB921F8B82 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w6TV1i5rX8GS for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:57:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDB521F8B7C for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:57:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rkoodli@cisco.com; l=1339; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318438655; x=1319648255; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bz0haPO4UrhgFrsGupZg2ZYV0pcbSHZCOMDWQ9LlLig=; b=YK+5VhvLgDH99laxxaJzYNvi8rKJ24hN8EpCJdzPmWHciC6yI4rDXmRA YSz80V8DG2pbZ4TNHY4aULWYxrEUp9JTAMW7s04XzajcuUcgBLBWvKdkH hp5o1z5wRQf+M3hIex7ITaiqp4762VoRSeiC+0pWsc8JL5Unj3S6KCH2c M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAM/GlU6tJXG8/2dsb2JhbABDqDSBBYFTAQEBAQIBAQEBDwEnAgExCxIBCBhVMAEBBAENBSKHXAibXQGeYwOHWASHf4t2hTGMQw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,335,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="27906569" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2011 16:57:34 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9CGvVfC014383; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:57:34 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:57:33 -0500 Received: from 10.21.84.116 ([10.21.84.116]) by XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:57:33 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:11:03 -0700 From: Rajeev Koodli To: "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04 Thread-Index: AcxGcYt8Segd5A1bSEOc4ChY6g6NHQtVxdiABT6klwAAD62hpg== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2011 16:57:33.0337 (UTC) FILETIME=[0925A890:01CC8900] Cc: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr@tools.ietf.org, netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:57:36 -0000 Hi Suresh, The PFMIPv6 spec had to address a similar issue - tunnel between MAGs. Perhaps you can embellish the relevant text from there. Thanks. -Rajeev On 10/12/11 9:42 AM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" wrote: > > Suresh/I-D authors, > > Is there a resolution to this issue? Can you please propose text that the > WG can agree on and we will then move forward. > > -Raj > > On 9/15/11 1:58 PM, "ext Suresh Krishnan" > wrote: > >>> 11. >>>> The tunnel between the MAGs is assumed to be established by means >>>> outside the scope of this document. >>> >>> It would be useful to at least provide some examples of the tunnel >>> establishment between MAGs from a completeness perspective. It looks >>> like handwaving at the moment. >> >> I agree with you that it is handwavy, but I am not sure what to add >> here. People wanted all kinds of tunnels here, IPv6, IPv4, GRE, USP, >> IPsec etc. with either manual or dynamic creation. If you want a >> specific scenario, I could add it here but if I remember correctly we >> did not even manage to get consensus among the authors. > > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Oct 12 22:39:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56AAA21F8B0D; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:39:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2SlKV-vKU9Iu; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E738021F87C2; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:39:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20111013053924.11478.63922.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:39:24 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-redirect-12.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 05:39:25 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Runtime LMA Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : Jouni Korhonen Sri Gundavelli Hidetoshi Yokota Xiangsong Cui Filename : draft-ietf-netext-redirect-12.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2011-10-12 This document describes a runtime Local Mobility Anchor assignment functionality and corresponding mobility options for Proxy Mobile IPv6. The runtime Local Mobility Anchor assignment takes place during a Proxy Binding Update and a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message exchange between a Mobile Access Gateway and a Local Mobility Anchor. The runtime Local Mobility Anchor assignment functionality defined in this specification can be used, for example, for load balancing purposes. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-redirect-12.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-redirect-12.txt From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Oct 17 07:43:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AB521F8B79; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:43:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.476 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8d9ZGu-T-Uzk; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6584021F8B94; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20111017144335.2081.77157.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:43:35 -0700 Cc: netext mailing list , netext chair , RFC Editor Subject: [netext] Protocol Action: 'Runtime LMA Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-netext-redirect-12.txt) X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:43:41 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Runtime LMA Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6' (draft-ietf-netext-redirect-12.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Ralph Droms. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-redirect/ Technical Summary This document specifies a redirect capability to the PMIP protocol. Working Group Summary This is a product of the NETEXT WG. Document Quality This specification has been carefully reviewed by the WG and the AD. Personnel The responsible Area Director is Jari Arkko. From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Mon Oct 17 12:55:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D14821F8C69 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:55:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VafWi3i4einx for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E6A21F8C5E for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p9HJtXiT004077 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:55:38 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:55:30 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.59) by NOK-am1MHUB-01.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:54:44 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.59]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:54:43 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: IETF82: Soliciting agenda items Thread-Index: AQHMjQadpG26vnPnxU+p7sDDQsTUnw== Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:54:43 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.25] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <68B4E67552E553428CDE09A453A12D97@nokia.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2011 19:55:30.0530 (UTC) FILETIME=[B950C420:01CC8D06] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [netext] IETF82: Soliciting agenda items X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:55:40 -0000 Hello, The Netext WG is scheduled (tentatively) to meet at IETF82 on Wed Nov 16th from 9-1130 AM. If you need an agenda slot at the WG meeting, please send a request to the chairs (netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org) Please indicate: 1. Name of I-D 2. Relevance to the Netext WG charter 3. Amount of time needed -Chairs From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Mon Oct 17 13:48:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C1D21F8B7B for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.666 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.066, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7v5vVSNThyZz for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6893721F8B79 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p9HKmAWj023521; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:48:11 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:48:06 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.59) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:48:05 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.59]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:48:05 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration Thread-Index: AQHMjQ4RrdC/zZ4Hw0OiAXKsx+HFaA== Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:48:04 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.25] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2785A5B81C7A7240A48BF2E38042E39E@nokia.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2011 20:48:06.0209 (UTC) FILETIME=[123F2B10:01CC8D0E] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration@tools.ietf.org Subject: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:48:14 -0000 Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-06 s/so to perform/so as to perform s/so some of relevant protocol operations can be performed on the entire group/in order to allow relevant protocol operations to be performed on the entire group. s/The document/This document s/will be the amount of /will the amount of Comment: "A mobile access gateway when sending a Proxy Binding Update message can request the local mobility anchor to assign a group identifier for the mobile node's mobility session." You might want to clarify that this is done for an MN which is performing initial attachment and for which there does not exist any mobility session yet. s/the message confirm /the message conform Comment: " Any time the local mobility anchor detects that the mobile node has roamed and changed its point of attachment to a new mobile access gateway, it SHOULD also update the group identifier of the mobility session. " If the LMA detects that an MN has attached to a different MAG it MUST delete the entry from the previous group. And subsequently update the GID if one has been assigned as a result of attachment to the new MAG. The security section does not address the threats arising from the ability to perform bulk operations. Suggest further enhancing the security considerations section to include concerns about bulk operations. -Raj From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 17 15:48:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FE011E80A6; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:48:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CbBksKF4vWhG; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4134B11E8096; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:48:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20111017224808.21061.99893.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:48:08 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-07.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:48:08 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Bulk Re-registration Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : Fuad Abinader Sri Gundavelli Kent Leung Suresh Krishnan Domagoj Premec Filename : draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-07.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2011-10-17 For extending the lifetime of a mobility session, the Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification requires the mobile access gateway to send a Proxy Binding Update message to the local mobility agent on a per-session basis. In the absence of signaling semantics for performing operations with group specific scope, it results in significant amount of signaling traffic on a periodic basis between a given mobile access gateway and a local mobility anchor. This document defines an optimization to the binding update and revocation operations in Proxy Mobile IPv6 for performing operations with group specific scope with the use of a group identifier. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-= 07.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-0= 7.txt From sgundave@cisco.com Mon Oct 17 15:51:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5AE1F0C52 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61mLKkljgKLu for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75021F0C42 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=1838; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318891888; x=1320101488; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+IRh7oSIdo+9qAa9eDOh5kLeErao/jNVcz+uKgfwRO8=; b=MRXOgzD12xl1TVDg9NwYZqPucxIpW6BZwIIe2p9Dllc5KBDCpKsMkP3O iXa9sRmu6gWznZiHex4QhpcGNaqi3q3ntdsepoGxVrrhEUbXOlK95Vnyu oVC/SXXQRha8NKhtFm39ztamTnc8Q7l+E+ZcsawmKkuaEi/ONER/G+VeJ U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqcGAH2wnE6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDqFUCgQWBbgEBAQMBAQEBDwEnAgExCxIBCG0wAgQBDQUih10ImDEBnm0EiAgEiAKLeIUxiBWELg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,362,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="8463737" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2011 22:51:28 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9HMpSWi008019; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:51:28 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:28 -0700 Received: from 128.107.112.115 ([128.107.112.115]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:51:27 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:26 -0700 From: Sri Gundavelli To: , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration Thread-Index: AQHMjQ4RrdC/zZ4Hw0OiAXKsx+HFaJWBJH0G In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2011 22:51:28.0407 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E4CF270:01CC8D1F] Cc: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:51:30 -0000 Thanks Raj. Posted. Regards Sri On 10/17/11 1:48 PM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" wrote: > > > Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-06 > > > s/so to perform/so as to perform > > s/so some of relevant protocol operations can be performed on the > entire group/in order to allow relevant protocol operations to be > performed on the entire group. > > s/The document/This document > > s/will be the amount of /will the amount of > > Comment: "A mobile access gateway when sending a Proxy Binding Update > message > can request the local mobility anchor to assign a group identifier > for the mobile node's mobility session." > > You might want to clarify that this is done for an MN which is > performing initial attachment and for which there does not exist any > mobility session yet. > > > s/the message confirm /the message conform > > Comment: " Any time the local mobility anchor detects that the mobile node > has roamed and changed its point of attachment to a new mobile > access gateway, it SHOULD also update the group identifier of the > mobility session. " > > If the LMA detects that an MN has attached to a different MAG it > MUST delete the entry from the previous group. And subsequently > update the GID if one has been assigned as a result of > attachment to the new MAG. > > The security section does not address the threats arising from the > ability to perform bulk operations. Suggest further enhancing the > security considerations section to include concerns about bulk > operations. > > > -Raj > > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 17 16:02:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25521F0C4C; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:02:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id riatIdm75DTt; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 711C61F0C42; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:02:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20111017230212.24670.62194.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:02:12 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-06.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:02:13 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : Suresh Krishnan Rajeev Koodli Paulo Loureiro Qin Wu Ashutosh Dutta Filename : draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-06.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2011-10-17 Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network based mobility management protocol that enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility-related signaling. PMIPv6 requires all communications to go through the local mobility anchor. As this can be suboptimal, localized routing (LR) allows mobile nodes attached to the same or different mobile access gateways to route traffic by using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the gateways. This document proposes initiation, utilization and termination mechanisms for localized routing between mobile access gateways within a proxy mobile IPv6 domain. It defines two new signaling messages, Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) and Local Routing Acknowledgment (LRA), that are used to realize this mechanism. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-06.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-06.txt From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Mon Oct 17 16:06:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF01911E80A2 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:06:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RPW6hEzj3PVM for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D64911E8095 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p9HN62sh001221; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:06:07 -0500 Received: from [142.133.10.107] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:05:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4E9CB43D.2070602@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:03:25 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rajeev Koodli References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr@tools.ietf.org" , "netext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-04 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:06:13 -0000 Hi Chairs, Version -06 of the draft has been posted with the tunneling information that was the last open item from Raj's review. Thanks Suresh On 11-10-12 01:11 PM, Rajeev Koodli wrote: > > Hi Suresh, > > The PFMIPv6 spec had to address a similar issue - tunnel between MAGs. > Perhaps you can embellish the relevant text from there. > > Thanks. > > -Rajeev > > > > On 10/12/11 9:42 AM, "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" > wrote: > >> >> Suresh/I-D authors, >> >> Is there a resolution to this issue? Can you please propose text that the >> WG can agree on and we will then move forward. >> >> -Raj >> >> On 9/15/11 1:58 PM, "ext Suresh Krishnan" >> wrote: >> >>>> 11. >>>>> The tunnel between the MAGs is assumed to be established by means >>>>> outside the scope of this document. >>>> >>>> It would be useful to at least provide some examples of the tunnel >>>> establishment between MAGs from a completeness perspective. It looks >>>> like handwaving at the moment. >>> >>> I agree with you that it is handwavy, but I am not sure what to add >>> here. People wanted all kinds of tunnels here, IPv6, IPv4, GRE, USP, >>> IPsec etc. with either manual or dynamic creation. If you want a >>> specific scenario, I could add it here but if I remember correctly we >>> did not even manage to get consensus among the authors. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netext mailing list >> netext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Tue Oct 18 14:17:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE85321F8BF3; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:17:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PwrTIvBFufUO; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:17:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80C621F8B38; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p9ILHOQ8011109; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:17:45 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:17:29 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.23) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:17:28 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-007.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.23]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.012; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:17:28 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6 Thread-Index: AQHMjdtWnZ+HdYyWaEWQlqVVLuXtGQ== Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:17:27 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.134] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <11B7051EE1402A4686F664C25EC38E54@nokia.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2011 21:17:29.0211 (UTC) FILETIME=[577DACB0:01CC8DDB] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6@tools.ietf.org Subject: [netext] Request to progress I-D: draft-ietf-netext-radius-pmip6 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:17:47 -0000 The Netext WG I-D: "RADIUS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6", has completed working group last call and is ready to be progressed for IESG review and approval. The I-D is a standards track document. The proto writeup for this I-D is below. -Basavaraj (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? I (Basavaraj Patil) am the document shepherd for this I-D. I have reviewed this version of the document and believe that it is ready to be forwarded to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been reviewed by RADIUS experts as well as a few key WG members. It has been reviewed adequately. I do not have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews w.r.t this I-D. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? The document has been reviewed by RADIUS experts. There is also some implementation experience of the specification. Hence additional reviews from a specific group or broader community is not essential. However a review by the Ops area directorate on the various RADIUS attributes being specified would be useful. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. I do not have any specific concerns with the document. The I-D specifies several new attributes (RADIUS) which are summarized in Sec 5.2 and the AD may want to pay attention to it. There have been no IPR disclosures related to this I-D. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong WG consensus behind this document. It is essential for enabling the deployment of PMIP6 (RFC5213) protocol. The WG as a whole does understand the relevance of this I-D and agrees with it. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. I have run the I-D throigh the tool and it has passed. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has split references into normative and informative ones. All normative references are RFCs. =20 (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Yes, the I-D does include an IANA considerations section which lists the set of attributes that need IANA action. The document does not recommend any new registry to be created. New RADIUS attributes (PMIP6 specific) are specified by this I-D and IANA assignments handled accordingly.=20 (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? I-D does not contain any XML code, BNF rules or MIB definitions. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Technical summary: This document defines new attributes to facilitate Proxy Mobile IPv6 operations using the RADIUS infrastructure. The protocol specified here uses RADIUS based interfaces of the mobile access gateway and the local mobility anchor with the AAA server for authentication, authorization and policy functions. The RADIUS interactions between the mobile access gateway and the RADIUS-based AAA server take place when the Mobile Node attaches to the network, authenticates and authorizes within a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain. Furthermore, this document defines the RADIUS-based interface between the local mobility anchor and the AAA RADIUS server for authorizing received Proxy Binding Update messages for the mobile node's mobility session. Additionally, this document specifies the baseline for the mobile access gateway and the local mobility anchor generated accounting. Working group summary: The document has been reviewed by several RADIUS protocol experts as well as key members within the working group. It has undergone two working group last calls and has been revised based on feedback from reviewers as well as implementation experience. There is strong WG consensus behind this document. Document quality: There is at least one known implementation of the protocol. Multiple vendors have indicated plans to implement this specification. All the key people who have reviewed this I-D are acknowledged in the document. =20 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Oct 20 00:19:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A60A11E8088; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:19:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j98IzimYqym4; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F309711E807F; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:19:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.61 Message-ID: <20111020071904.29565.36275.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:19:04 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-08.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:19:05 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Bulk Re-registration Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : Fuad Abinader Sri Gundavelli Kent Leung Suresh Krishnan Domagoj Premec Filename : draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-08.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2011-10-19 For extending the lifetime of a mobility session, the Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification requires the mobile access gateway to send a Proxy Binding Update message to the local mobility agent on a per-session basis. In the absence of signaling semantics for performing operations with group specific scope, it results in significant amount of signaling traffic on a periodic basis between a given mobile access gateway and a local mobility anchor. This document defines an optimization to the binding update and revocation operations in Proxy Mobile IPv6 for performing operations with group specific scope with the use of a group identifier. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-= 08.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-0= 8.txt From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Thu Oct 20 09:00:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0961321F8CC1; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:00:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.739 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m6C74wwRfA-H; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:00:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065FA21F8CC2; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9KG0Q5W027738; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:00:27 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:00:21 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-001.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.56) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:00:20 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-001.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.56]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:00:20 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: Request to progress Netext WG I-D draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-08 Thread-Index: AQHMj0Fetsi6DPDm4ke8DOfoItAunA== Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:00:20 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.136] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2011 16:00:21.0854 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F20E7E0:01CC8F41] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration@tools.ietf.org Subject: [netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-08 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:00:30 -0000 Hello, The Netext working group I-D: "Bulk Re-registration Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6", has completed working group last call and is ready to be progressed. Please consider this as a request for review and approval for publication this I-D by the IESG. The I-D is to be progressed on standards track. -Basavaraj (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? I (Basavaraj Patil) will be the document shepherd for this I-D. I have reviewed the I-D and believe it is ready to be forwarded to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been reviewed sufficiently by key WG members. I have no concerns regarding the depth or breadth of the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? I have no concerns with the current set of reviews and do not believe any further broader reviews are needed. Reviews by the various directorates during the IETF last call process will anyway help. The I-D does not have any XML code or internationalization aspects and hence does not need reviews from experts in that quarter. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. There are no concerns or issues with this document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is sufficient WG consensus behind this document. It has been discussed within the working group for over 2 years now. The norm has been that a few WG members are active while most are passive. The active WG members understand and agree with this I-D. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. There have been no threats of appeals or otherwise w.r.t this I-D. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. I have run the I-D through the ID nits tool and no issues exist. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes, the document has split the references into normative and informative ones. All references are to published RFCs. There are no pending dependencies. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The document contains an IANA considerations section with clear instructions of the actions required by IANA. The specification does not require a new registry but uses the existing registry and adds new attributes to that registry. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? The document does not contain any XML code or BNF rules. It does not contain any MIB definitions either. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary=20 For extending the lifetime of a mobility session, the Proxy Mobile IPv6 specification requires the mobile access gateway to send a Proxy Binding Update message to the local mobility agent on a per-session basis. In the absence of signaling semantics for performing operations with group specific scope, it results in significant amount of signaling traffic on a periodic basis between a given mobile access gateway and a local mobility anchor. This document defines an optimization to the binding update and revocation operations in Proxy Mobile IPv6 for performing operations with group specific scope using of a group identifier. Working Group Summary There is WG consensus regarding this proposal. The I-D has been presented and discussed at several WG meetings. It has also been sufficiently reviewed and the document quality improved over multiple revisions. Document Quality=20 There are no known implementations of this protocol at the present time. WG members who helped with the reviews have been acknowledged in the I-D. The document quality is good and can serve as the basis for an implementation. Clear guidelines for processing by the Mobile Access Gateway and the Local Mobility Agent have been specified. From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Mon Oct 24 08:18:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0588621F8CDF for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:18:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.333 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TlNPoKF4RiPQ for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692EF21F8C4F for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnv1 with SMTP id v1so7050401ggn.31 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XV+9JJ6i6S1bTDxBa5OusniSEp6rhLTsYWHEjmlPs6k=; b=pQirvZoenpLvJZbG2NQ0B6gBeUmnVzdk6/m3cFa7UPu09kTOJxtgTH6EqQokQrUkQK 2xoGCiwe4B4Z+zhw3Z/Th1rgyqhJwm0GaNKXHUX9z5KgKpBY38SMvRRMZVi+xwyv1fXf LQsVFcRVQ7nwoqqpCPzNmb2c617yOrrpiVJWE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.73.228 with SMTP id v64mr34423758yhd.103.1319469511944; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.110.39 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:18:31 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: netext@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300512808d2af604b00cef13 Subject: [netext] draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-01.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:18:33 -0000 --20cf300512808d2af604b00cef13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Chairs, Please allocate a slot to present this draft. Regards, Behcet On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:15 PM, wrote: > A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF > repository. > > Filename: draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions > Revision: 01 > Title: PMIPv6 Multihoming Support for Flow Mobility > Creation date: 2011-10-22 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 10 > > Abstract: > This document specifies extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) for > flow mobility support. Binding cache, binding update list and home > network prefix option are slighlty extended to allow indicating the > home interface and other interfaces. > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > --20cf300512808d2af604b00cef13 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Chairs,
Please allocate a slot to present this draft.

Regard= s,

Behcet

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at = 5:15 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-netext= -fb-support-extensions-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sar= ikaya and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions
Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A001
Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 PMIPv6 Multihoming Support for Flow Mobility
Creation date: =A0 2011-10-22
WG ID: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 10

Abstract:
=A0 This document specifies extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) for =A0 flow mobility support. =A0Binding cache, binding update list and home<= br> =A0 network prefix option are slighlty extended to allow indicating the =A0 home interface and other interfaces.




The IETF Secretariat

--20cf300512808d2af604b00cef13-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 24 14:29:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC7711E816C; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:29:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O++ylHpPPPCi; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F409711E815C; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:29:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.61 Message-ID: <20111024212938.3032.85966.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:29:38 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:29:39 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : Suresh Krishnan Rajeev Koodli Paulo Loureiro Qin Wu Ashutosh Dutta Filename : draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2011-10-24 Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network based mobility management protocol that enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility-related signaling. PMIPv6 requires all communications to go through the local mobility anchor. As this can be suboptimal, localized routing (LR) allows mobile nodes attached to the same or different mobile access gateways to route traffic by using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the gateways. This document proposes initiation, utilization and termination mechanisms for localized routing between mobile access gateways within a proxy mobile IPv6 domain. It defines two new signaling messages, Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) and Local Routing Acknowledgment (LRA), that are used to realize this mechanism. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07.txt From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Tue Oct 25 09:50:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6815021F8C57; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:50:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.716 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.716 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mjUeqiHiBn09; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C93321F8C55; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9PGoMAT030473; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:50:32 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:50:25 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-008.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.24) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:50:25 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-008.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.24]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:50:25 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: Request to progress Netext WG I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07 Thread-Index: AQHMkzYw+OEFKSXIvkGZVc/Jij5Rug== Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:50:24 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.28] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2011 16:50:25.0868 (UTC) FILETIME=[31B9D0C0:01CC9336] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr@tools.ietf.org, netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] Request to progress Netext WG I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-07 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:50:34 -0000 Hello, The Netext WG I-D: "Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6", has completed working group last call and is ready to be advanced to the IESG for review and approval for publication.=20 Intended status of the I-D: Standards track Please consider this as a request for progressing this WG I-D towards publication following IESG reviews and IETF LC. -Basavaraj (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? I (Basavaraj Patil) am the document shepherd for this document. I have reviewed this version of the I-Dand believe that it is ready to be forwarded to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had adequate review by key WG members. It has not had any review by people outside the scope of the WG. I do not have concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews received. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? I do not have any concerns regarding the need for further review by any specific group of experts. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. I have no concerns with the content or quality of the document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is sufficient WG consensus behind this document. The active constituents of the Netext WG are in support of this document while the rest are simply silent. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No.=20 (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes, I have run the document through the ID-Nits tools and apart from a few warnings, there are no concerns. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has split references into normative and informative sections. All references are published RFCs and hence there is no concern about dependency on the referenced documents. =20 (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Yes. The IANA section contains clear instructions for allocation of a new mobility header type. The registryto be used is also provided in the IANA section of the I-D. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? There is no XML code or MIB definitions contained in the I-D. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary=20 Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network based mobility management protocol that enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility-related signaling. PMIPv6 requires all communications to go through the local mobility anchor. As this can be suboptimal, localized routing (LR) allows mobile nodes attached to the same or different mobile access gateways to route traffic by using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the gateways. This document proposes initiation, utilization and termination mechanisms for localized routing between mobile access gateways within a proxy mobile IPv6 domain. It defines two new signaling messages, Localized Routing Initiation (LRI) and Local Routing Acknowledgment (LRA), that are used to realize this mechanism. Working Group Summary This document has been presented and discussed at length in the working group. It includes multiple contributors who are listed in the Authors section. There is sufficient consensus behind the document. The authors could not agree on the tunnelling mechanism to be used between the MAGs. This has however been resolved based on the solution that is presented in RFC5949 (Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6). Document Quality=20 There are no known implementation of the protocol at the present time. However there is strong interest in utilizing the optimization feature in the context of network based mobility solutions. The document quality is good and provides reasonable clarity for an implementer who understands PMIP6 (RFC5213). From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Tue Oct 25 19:45:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056B611E8099 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:45:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.415 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G709+1JjRA62 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE8B11E8082 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9Q2jh5x024329 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 05:45:50 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 26 Oct 2011 05:45:42 +0300 Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.57) by NOK-AM1MHUB-04.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:45:42 +0200 Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-053.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.208]) by 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:45:42 +0200 From: To: Thread-Topic: Tentative agenda of WG meeting at IETF 82 Thread-Index: AQHMk4lZ6z9emdRjwESnx5uVpsvjBg== Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 02:45:41 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 x-originating-ip: [173.74.219.186] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2011 02:45:42.0943 (UTC) FILETIME=[5AC2F2F0:01CC9389] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [netext] Tentative agenda of WG meeting at IETF 82 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 02:45:53 -0000 Please see the agenda below for the Netext WG meeting at IETF82. If you had requested an agenda slot and do not see it below, please send me a reminder email. -Basavaraj Rev: 1 Network-Based Mobility Extensions (NetExt) WG meeting WEDNESDAY, November 16, 2011 0900-1130 Morning Session I (Room 101B) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Logistics (Bluesheets, minutes takers, jabber, agenda bashing) 5 mins 2. WG Status update Chairs 5 Mins 3. Logical Interface Support for multi-mode IP Hosts 5 Mins I-D: draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support Sri Gundavelli 4. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility 10 Mins I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob CJ Bernardos 5. Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 5 Mins I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip Carl Williams Proposals for consideration: 1. Optimizing IP Mobility Authentication with EAP 10 Mins I-D: draft-perkins-netext-eapbu Charles Perkins 2. Service Selection for Mobile IPv6 15 Mins I-D: draft-korhonen-netext-rfc5149bis-00.txt Jouni Korhonen 3. Problem Statement of Flow Mobility Triggering 10 Mins I-D: draft-tian-netext-flow-mobility-trigger-ps-00 Tian Tian From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Wed Oct 26 08:14:58 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E6A21F8AEC for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:14:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.381 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.381 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id myZ8VvYQL5k1 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:14:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E902321F8ADC for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so1960331gyh.31 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:14:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2JIfpMgd5f5Gs0mlc9jYcN9oZBupoPAoYJIAHTIklhU=; b=iZkVqbD7oniEp3dXQwtVTaNVirqkqxMQHIOQpfb01Q+nzDwFojkgBYYNCcuLWkU3f2 3mfl3XBSxbDykgdp9RJDh9mW4TnE1jR6xfUxJr2kei2EPzkrsKQ5WcsvFQRJvOqNEywF 2F6at6Ypr0SOHbzWVzenBTnAidm4a5OnmjTW8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.123.97 with SMTP id u61mr5066724yhh.1.1319642091396; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.110.39 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:14:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:14:51 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301b658516a02204b0351e6a Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Tentative agenda of WG meeting at IETF 82 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:14:58 -0000 --20cf301b658516a02204b0351e6a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Basavaraj, In my mail http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/current/msg02226.html I had asked a slot and I don't see such a slot allocated below. Please allocate one. Regards, Behcet On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:45 PM, wrote: > > Please see the agenda below for the Netext WG meeting at IETF82. > If you had requested an agenda slot and do not see it below, please send > me a reminder email. > > -Basavaraj > > Rev: 1 > > Network-Based Mobility Extensions (NetExt) WG meeting > > WEDNESDAY, November 16, 2011 > 0900-1130 Morning Session I (Room 101B) > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > 1. Logistics (Bluesheets, minutes takers, jabber, agenda bashing) 5 mins > > 2. WG Status update Chairs 5 Mins > > 3. Logical Interface Support for multi-mode IP Hosts 5 Mins > I-D: draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support Sri Gundavelli > > 4. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility 10 Mins > I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob CJ Bernardos > > 5. Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 5 Mins > I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip Carl Williams > > Proposals for consideration: > > 1. Optimizing IP Mobility Authentication with EAP 10 Mins > I-D: draft-perkins-netext-eapbu Charles Perkins > > 2. Service Selection for Mobile IPv6 15 Mins > I-D: draft-korhonen-netext-rfc5149bis-00.txt Jouni Korhonen > > > 3. Problem Statement of Flow Mobility Triggering 10 Mins > I-D: draft-tian-netext-flow-mobility-trigger-ps-00 Tian Tian > > > > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > --20cf301b658516a02204b0351e6a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Basavaraj,

In my mail
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web= /netext/current/msg02226.html

I had asked a slot and I don't= see such a slot allocated below.
Please allocate one.

Regards,

Behcet

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:45 PM, <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> wrote:

Please see the agenda below for the Netext WG meeting at IETF82.
If you had requested an agenda slot and do not see it below, please send me a reminder email.

-Basavaraj

Rev: 1

Network-Based Mobility Extensions (NetExt) WG meeting

WEDNESDAY, November 16, 2011
0900-1130 Morning Session I (Room 101B)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1. Logistics (Bluesheets, minutes takers, jabber, agenda bashing) 5 mins
2. WG Status update =A0 =A0 =A0 Chairs =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A05 Mins

3. Logical Interface Support for multi-mode IP Hosts =A0 =A05 Mins
=A0 I-D: draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support =A0Sri Gundavelli

4. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility =A010 Mins
=A0 I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0CJ Bernardos

5. Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A05= Mins
=A0 I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 Carl Williams

Proposals for consideration:

1. Optimizing IP Mobility Authentication with EAP =A0 =A0 =A0 10 Mins
=A0 I-D: draft-perkins-netext-eapbu =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0Charles Perkins

2. Service Selection for Mobile IPv6 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A015 Mins
=A0 I-D: draft-korhonen-netext-rfc5149bis-00.txt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jouni Kor= honen


3. Problem Statement of Flow Mobility Triggering =A0 =A0 =A0 =A010 Mins
=A0 I-D: draft-tian-netext-flow-mobility-trigger-ps-00 =A0 Tian Tian



_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
netext@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

--20cf301b658516a02204b0351e6a-- From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Wed Oct 26 08:17:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4973121F8B52 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:17:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id izM1vJBZ1B9o for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDDD21F8B4E for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ywt2 with SMTP id 2so1955581ywt.31 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Etc1PF3d/p0F/tPjN6sitTfF9OD13BEvEMSeJGgraIA=; b=kTNSAAv/Ssyl2/v17WMkv7L4uTbV9/3LOVR0HJuS/o/1qfiDI0oV2FiQe1rB/owvhK Uk31+iaROswoJI++h3UbnMxdzUwZaCsMOmxLOAZuvn5HlUyslGDJWouSqjENxxY6p23t gxhKNdmV8VFD7yKD6OGvLXkEekJ7AzcEs9ZLQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.77.104 with SMTP id c68mr46702880yhe.69.1319642264237; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.110.39 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:17:44 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: netext@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3005123463f83504b035289b Subject: [netext] draft-perkins-netext-eapbu X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:17:45 -0000 --20cf3005123463f83504b035289b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Charlie, I read this draft. My reaction is another EAP transport using BU/BA. Like PANA, 802.1X, etc. I guess the idea is to define a new option. Also, BU/BA are not defined in any Netext documents, why is this a Netext document? Keep up the good work. Regards, Behcet --20cf3005123463f83504b035289b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Charlie,

I read this draft.
My reaction is another EAP transpo= rt using BU/BA.
Like PANA, 802.1X, etc.

I guess the idea is to d= efine a new option.

Also, BU/BA are not defined in any Netext docume= nts, why is this a Netext document?

Keep up the good work.

Regards,

Behcet
--20cf3005123463f83504b035289b-- From tu.yangwei@zte.com.cn Wed Oct 26 18:11:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C219F21F8AF4; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:11:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -92.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-92.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zlaxbERhqiFO; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E519921F8A64; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 466213502467742; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:02:58 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 20387.5406157678; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:10:49 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p9R1Ai05082878; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:10:44 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from tu.yangwei@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KeepSent: 04041050:46B68B3B-48257936:00052550; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 Message-ID: From: tu.yangwei@zte.com.cn Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:10:39 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-10-27 09:10:45, Serialize complete at 2011-10-27 09:10:45 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0006B24448257936_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p9R1Ai05082878 Cc: netext@ietf.org, netext-bounces@ietf.org Subject: [netext] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFRlbnRhdGl2ZSBhZ2VuZGEgb2YgV0cgbWVl?= =?gb2312?b?dGluZyBhdCBJRVRGIDgy?= X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:11:00 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0006B24448257936_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RGVhciBCYXNhdmFyYWosDQpJIGhhZCByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgYSBzbG90IGZvciBkcmFmdC10dS1uZXRl eHQtbW4tc3RhdHVzLW9wdGlvbi0wMCBhbmQgZG8gbm90IA0KYW55IG9uZSB0byBiZSBhc3NpZ25l ZCBpbiB0aGUgYWdlbmRhIGJlbG93Lg0KUGxlYXNlIGFsbG9jYXRlIG9uZSBpZiBwb3NzaWJsZS4N Cg0KQlIsDQpZYW5nd2VpIFR1DQoNCg0KDQpwczp0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMgZW1haWwgaXMgYXR0YWNo ZWQgYmVsb3cuLi4NCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KDQrNv9HuzqExNDY3NTMvdXNlci96dGVfbHRkDQoyMDExLTEw LTE5IDA5OjQyDQoNCsrVvP7Iyw0KbmV0ZXh0LWNoYWlyc0B0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZw0Ks63LzQ0K DQrW98ziDQpBIHJlcXVlc3QgdG8gcHJlc2VudCBhIGRyYWZ0IGluIG5ldGV4dCxJRVRGODINCg0K DQoNCg0KDQpEZWFyIG5ldGV4dCBDaGFpcnMsDQpJIHJlcXVlc3QgYSBzbG90IGF0IHRoZSBuZXRl eHQgbWVldGluZyB0byBwcmVzZW50IGEgZHJhZnQsIGFuZCB0aGUgDQppbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpcyBh cyBmb2xsb3c6DQoxLiBOYW1lIG9mIEktRDpNTiBTdGF0dXMgT3B0aW9uIGZvciBQcm94eSBNb2Jp bGUgSVB2Ng0KMi4gUmVsZXZhbmNlIHRvIHRoZSBOZXRleHQgV0cgY2hhcnRlcjpQTUlQdjYgZXh0 ZW5zaW9ucyB0byBzdXBwb3J0IGZsb3cgDQptb2JpbGl0eQ0KMy4gQW1vdW50IG9mIHRpbWUgbmVl ZGVkOiA1IG1pbnV0ZXMNCg0KUGxlYXNlIGNvbnNpZGVyIG15IHJlcXVlc3QuDQpCUiwNCg0KWWFu Z3dlaSBUdQ0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCjxCYXNhdmFyYWouUGF0aWxAbm9raWEuY29tPiANCreivP7Iyzog IG5ldGV4dC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnDQoyMDExLTEwLTI2IDEwOjQ1DQoNCsrVvP7Iyw0KPG5l dGV4dEBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCrOty80NCg0K1vfM4g0KW25ldGV4dF0gVGVudGF0aXZlIGFnZW5kYSBv ZiBXRyBtZWV0aW5nIGF0IElFVEYgODINCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KUGxlYXNlIHNlZSB0aGUgYWdl bmRhIGJlbG93IGZvciB0aGUgTmV0ZXh0IFdHIG1lZXRpbmcgYXQgSUVURjgyLg0KSWYgeW91IGhh ZCByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgYW4gYWdlbmRhIHNsb3QgYW5kIGRvIG5vdCBzZWUgaXQgYmVsb3csIHBsZWFz ZSBzZW5kDQptZSBhIHJlbWluZGVyIGVtYWlsLg0KDQotQmFzYXZhcmFqDQoNClJldjogMQ0KDQpO ZXR3b3JrLUJhc2VkIE1vYmlsaXR5IEV4dGVuc2lvbnMgKE5ldEV4dCkgV0cgbWVldGluZw0KDQpX RURORVNEQVksIE5vdmVtYmVyIDE2LCAyMDExDQowOTAwLTExMzAgTW9ybmluZyBTZXNzaW9uIEkg KFJvb20gMTAxQikNCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCg0KMS4gTG9naXN0aWNzIChCbHVlc2hlZXRzLCBtaW51 dGVzIHRha2VycywgamFiYmVyLCBhZ2VuZGEgYmFzaGluZykgNSBtaW5zDQoNCjIuIFdHIFN0YXR1 cyB1cGRhdGUgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgQ2hhaXJzICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgNSBNaW5zDQoN CjMuIExvZ2ljYWwgSW50ZXJmYWNlIFN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIG11bHRpLW1vZGUgSVAgSG9zdHMgICAg ICAgICAgICAgNSBNaW5zDQogICBJLUQ6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbmV0ZXh0LWxvZ2ljYWwtaW50ZXJm YWNlLXN1cHBvcnQgIFNyaSBHdW5kYXZlbGxpDQoNCjQuIFByb3h5IE1vYmlsZSBJUHY2IEV4dGVu c2lvbnMgdG8gU3VwcG9ydCBGbG93IE1vYmlsaXR5ICAxMCBNaW5zDQogICBJLUQ6IGRyYWZ0LWll dGYtbmV0ZXh0LXBtaXB2Ni1mbG93bW9iIENKIEJlcm5hcmRvcw0KDQo1LiBQcmVmaXggRGVsZWdh dGlvbiBmb3IgUHJveHkgTW9iaWxlIElQdjYgNSBNaW5zDQogICBJLUQ6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbmV0 ZXh0LXBkLXBtaXAgICAgQ2FybCBXaWxsaWFtcw0KDQpQcm9wb3NhbHMgZm9yIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRp b246DQoNCjEuIE9wdGltaXppbmcgSVAgTW9iaWxpdHkgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gd2l0aCBFQVAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTAgTWlucw0KICAgSS1EOiBkcmFmdC1wZXJraW5zLW5ldGV4dC1lYXBi dSAgQ2hhcmxlcyBQZXJraW5zDQoNCjIuIFNlcnZpY2UgU2VsZWN0aW9uIGZvciBNb2JpbGUgSVB2 NiAgMTUgTWlucw0KICAgSS1EOiBkcmFmdC1rb3Job25lbi1uZXRleHQtcmZjNTE0OWJpcy0wMC50 eHQgICAgICAgICBKb3VuaSBLb3Job25lbg0KDQoNCjMuIFByb2JsZW0gU3RhdGVtZW50IG9mIEZs b3cgTW9iaWxpdHkgVHJpZ2dlcmluZyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMTAgTWlucw0KICAgSS1EOiBk cmFmdC10aWFuLW5ldGV4dC1mbG93LW1vYmlsaXR5LXRyaWdnZXItcHMtMDAgICBUaWFuIFRpYW4N Cg0KDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpu ZXRleHQgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpuZXRleHRAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3Jn L21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbmV0ZXh0DQoNCg0KDQo= --=_alternative 0006B24448257936_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkRlYXIgQmFzYXZhcmFqLDwvZm9u dD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+SSBoYWQgcmVxdWVzdGVkIGEg c2xvdCBmb3IgZHJhZnQtdHUtbmV0ZXh0LW1uLXN0YXR1cy1vcHRpb24tMDANCmFuZCBkbyBub3Qg YW55IG9uZSB0byBiZSBhc3NpZ25lZCBpbiB0aGUgYWdlbmRhIGJlbG93LjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48 Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+UGxlYXNlIGFsbG9jYXRlIG9uZSBpZiBwb3Nz aWJsZS48L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkJS LDwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+WWFuZ3dlaSBUdTwv Zm9udD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI+cHM6dGhlIHByZXZpb3VzIGVtYWlsIGlzIGF0dGFjaGVkIGJlbG93Li4uPC9mb250Pg0KPGJy Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS08L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+DQo8dGFi bGUgd2lkdGg9MTAwJT4NCjx0ciB2YWxpZ249dG9wPg0KPHRkIHdpZHRoPTQwJT48Zm9udCBzaXpl PTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PGI+zb/R7s6hMTQ2NzUzL3VzZXIvenRlX2x0ZDwvYj48L2Zv bnQ+DQo8cD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+MjAxMS0xMC0xOSAwOTo0Mjwv Zm9udD4NCjx0ZCB3aWR0aD01OSU+DQo8dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9MTAwJT4NCjx0ciB2YWxpZ249dG9w Pg0KPHRkPg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj1yaWdodD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+ ytW8/sjLPC9mb250PjwvZGl2Pg0KPHRkPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5u ZXRleHQtY2hhaXJzQHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnPC9mb250Pg0KPHRyIHZhbGlnbj10b3A+DQo8dGQ+ DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPXJpZ2h0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj6zrcvNPC9m b250PjwvZGl2Pg0KPHRkPg0KPHRyIHZhbGlnbj10b3A+DQo8dGQ+DQo8ZGl2IGFsaWduPXJpZ2h0 Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj7W98ziPC9mb250PjwvZGl2Pg0KPHRkPjxm b250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5BIHJlcXVlc3QgdG8gcHJlc2VudCBhIGRyYWZ0 IGluIG5ldGV4dCxJRVRGODI8L2ZvbnQ+PGEgaHJlZj1Ob3RlczovL1NaTUFJTDM5Lzg2MjU3NjZC MDAwQjA0NEMvQ0QyRjMyNUQ4NjBDNzREMTQ4MjU2QzUyMDA0NDc1RjcvRjBGMDJBNEFBN0UzRkE3 ODQ4MjU3OTJDMDA2RDdBNjI+wbS90zwvYT48L3RhYmxlPg0KPGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlPg0KPHRyIHZh bGlnbj10b3A+DQo8dGQ+DQo8dGQ+PC90YWJsZT4NCjxicj48L3RhYmxlPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxm b250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5EZWFyIG5ldGV4dCBDaGFpcnMsPC9mb250Pg0K PGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5JIHJlcXVlc3QgYSBzbG90IGF0IHRo ZSBuZXRleHQgbWVldGluZw0KdG8gcHJlc2VudCBhIGRyYWZ0LCBhbmQgdGhlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9u IGlzIGFzIGZvbGxvdzo8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PHR0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj4xLiBOYW1lIG9mIEkt RDpNTiBTdGF0dXMgT3B0aW9uIGZvciBQcm94eSBNb2JpbGUgSVB2Njxicj4NCjIuIFJlbGV2YW5j ZSB0byB0aGUgTmV0ZXh0IFdHIGNoYXJ0ZXI6UE1JUHY2IGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBm bG93DQptb2JpbGl0eTwvZm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+My4gQW1vdW50 IG9mIHRpbWUgbmVlZGVkOiA1IG1pbnV0ZXM8L2ZvbnQ+PC90dD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48dHQ+PGZv bnQgc2l6ZT0yPlBsZWFzZSBjb25zaWRlciBteSByZXF1ZXN0LjwvZm9udD48L3R0Pg0KPGJyPjx0 dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+QlIsPC9mb250PjwvdHQ+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+PHR0Pjxmb250IHNpemU9 Mj5ZYW5nd2VpIFR1PC9mb250PjwvdHQ+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8 dGFibGUgd2lkdGg9MTAwJT4NCjx0ciB2YWxpZ249dG9wPg0KPHRkIHdpZHRoPTM1JT48Zm9udCBz aXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PGI+Jmx0O0Jhc2F2YXJhai5QYXRpbEBub2tpYS5jb20m Z3Q7PC9iPg0KPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj63orz+ yMs6ICZuYnNwO25ldGV4dC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnPC9mb250Pg0KPHA+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0x IGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPjIwMTEtMTAtMjYgMTA6NDU8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8dGQgd2lkdGg9NjQl Pg0KPHRhYmxlIHdpZHRoPTEwMCU+DQo8dHIgdmFsaWduPXRvcD4NCjx0ZD4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249 cmlnaHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPsrVvP7IyzwvZm9udD48L2Rpdj4N Cjx0ZD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+Jmx0O25ldGV4dEBpZXRmLm9yZyZn dDs8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8dHIgdmFsaWduPXRvcD4NCjx0ZD4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249cmlnaHQ+PGZvbnQg c2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPrOty808L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8dGQ+DQo8dHIgdmFs aWduPXRvcD4NCjx0ZD4NCjxkaXYgYWxpZ249cmlnaHQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMt c2VyaWYiPtb3zOI8L2ZvbnQ+PC9kaXY+DQo8dGQ+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2Vy aWYiPltuZXRleHRdIFRlbnRhdGl2ZSBhZ2VuZGEgb2YgV0cgbWVldGluZw0KYXQgSUVURiA4Mjwv Zm9udD48L3RhYmxlPg0KPGJyPg0KPHRhYmxlPg0KPHRyIHZhbGlnbj10b3A+DQo8dGQ+DQo8dGQ+ PC90YWJsZT4NCjxicj48L3RhYmxlPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjx0dD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+ PGJyPg0KUGxlYXNlIHNlZSB0aGUgYWdlbmRhIGJlbG93IGZvciB0aGUgTmV0ZXh0IFdHIG1lZXRp bmcgYXQgSUVURjgyLjxicj4NCklmIHlvdSBoYWQgcmVxdWVzdGVkIGFuIGFnZW5kYSBzbG90IGFu ZCBkbyBub3Qgc2VlIGl0IGJlbG93LCBwbGVhc2Ugc2VuZDxicj4NCm1lIGEgcmVtaW5kZXIgZW1h aWwuPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KLUJhc2F2YXJhajxicj4NCjxicj4NClJldjogMTxicj4NCjxicj4NCk5l dHdvcmstQmFzZWQgTW9iaWxpdHkgRXh0ZW5zaW9ucyAoTmV0RXh0KSBXRyBtZWV0aW5nPGJyPg0K PGJyPg0KV0VETkVTREFZLCBOb3ZlbWJlciAxNiwgMjAxMTxicj4NCjA5MDAtMTEzMCBNb3JuaW5n IFNlc3Npb24gSSAoUm9vbSAxMDFCKTxicj4NCjxicj4NCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KMS4g TG9naXN0aWNzIChCbHVlc2hlZXRzLCBtaW51dGVzIHRha2VycywgamFiYmVyLCBhZ2VuZGEgYmFz aGluZykgNSBtaW5zPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KMi4gV0cgU3RhdHVzIHVwZGF0ZSAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7 ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsNCiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgQ2hhaXJz ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsNCiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7 ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgNSBNaW5zPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KMy4gTG9naWNhbCBJbnRlcmZhY2UgU3Vw cG9ydCBmb3IgbXVsdGktbW9kZSBJUCBIb3N0cyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOw0KJm5ic3A7 ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyA1IE1pbnM8YnI+DQogJm5ic3A7IEktRDogZHJh ZnQtaWV0Zi1uZXRleHQtbG9naWNhbC1pbnRlcmZhY2Utc3VwcG9ydCAmbmJzcDtTcmkgR3VuZGF2 ZWxsaTxicj4NCjxicj4NCjQuIFByb3h5IE1vYmlsZSBJUHY2IEV4dGVuc2lvbnMgdG8gU3VwcG9y dCBGbG93IE1vYmlsaXR5ICZuYnNwOzEwIE1pbnM8YnI+DQogJm5ic3A7IEktRDogZHJhZnQtaWV0 Zi1uZXRleHQtcG1pcHY2LWZsb3dtb2IgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7DQombmJz cDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNw Ow0KJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwO0NKIEJlcm5hcmRvczxicj4NCjxi cj4NCjUuIFByZWZpeCBEZWxlZ2F0aW9uIGZvciBQcm94eSBNb2JpbGUgSVB2NiAmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsNCiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7DQombmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7NSBNaW5zPGJyPg0KICZuYnNwOyBJLUQ6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbmV0ZXh0LXBkLXBtaXAgJm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7DQombmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOw0KJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOw0KJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyBDYXJsIFdpbGxpYW1zPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KUHJvcG9zYWxzIGZvciBjb25zaWRl cmF0aW9uOjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjEuIE9wdGltaXppbmcgSVAgTW9iaWxpdHkgQXV0aGVudGljYXRp b24gd2l0aCBFQVAgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsNCiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZu YnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgMTAgTWluczxicj4NCiAmbmJzcDsgSS1EOiBkcmFmdC1wZXJraW5zLW5ldGV4 dC1lYXBidSAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsNCiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7 ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7DQombmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7 ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7DQombmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7 ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgQ2hhcmxlcyBQZXJraW5zPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KMi4gU2VydmljZSBTZWxl Y3Rpb24gZm9yIE1vYmlsZSBJUHY2ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOw0KJm5ic3A7 ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsN CiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsN CiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAxNSBNaW5zPGJyPg0KICZuYnNwOyBJLUQ6IGRy YWZ0LWtvcmhvbmVuLW5ldGV4dC1yZmM1MTQ5YmlzLTAwLnR4dCAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNw Ow0KJm5ic3A7IEpvdW5pIEtvcmhvbmVuPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KMy4gUHJvYmxlbSBTdGF0 ZW1lbnQgb2YgRmxvdyBNb2JpbGl0eSBUcmlnZ2VyaW5nICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZu YnNwOw0KJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7IDEwIE1pbnM8YnI+DQogJm5ic3A7IEkt RDogZHJhZnQtdGlhbi1uZXRleHQtZmxvdy1tb2JpbGl0eS10cmlnZ2VyLXBzLTAwICZuYnNwOyBU aWFuDQpUaWFuPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX188YnI+DQpuZXRleHQgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0PGJyPg0KbmV0 ZXh0QGlldGYub3JnPGJyPg0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9u ZXRleHQ8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8L2ZvbnQ+PC90dD4NCjxicj4NCg== --=_alternative 0006B24448257936_=-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Oct 30 12:21:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583C921F8B0C; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:21:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LulY8qqOIwBt; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6EE221F8A66; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:21:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.62 Message-ID: <20111030192119.28808.61683.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:21:19 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-02.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:21:20 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility Author(s) : Carlos J. Bernardos Filename : draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-02.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2011-10-30 Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows a mobile node to connect to the same Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain through different interfaces. However, the ability of movement of selected flows from one access technology to another is missing in the basic Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol. This document describes enhancements to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are required to support network based flow mobility over multiple physical interfaces. This document assumes that the mobile node implements the logical interface model, therefore allowing the support of traffic flows on different physical interfaces regardless of the assigned prefixes on these physical interfaces. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-02.txt From cjbc@it.uc3m.es Sun Oct 30 12:24:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105B421F8797 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:24:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zk5pWrvclO+K for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:24:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AA521F8726 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:24:32 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from [192.168.1.3] (82.158.121.177.dyn.user.ono.com [82.158.121.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7473F75AB84 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:24:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1320002670.3313.105.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: netext@ietf.org Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:24:30 +0100 Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ySVLq9vqxIytMc7kYZW1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-2 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18482.000 Subject: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-02.txt] X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:24:34 -0000 --=-ySVLq9vqxIytMc7kYZW1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-Uchi3JV0H+GNh42VInA4" --=-Uchi3JV0H+GNh42VInA4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I've just uploaded a new version of the draft including some editorial and minor changes to make it more readable. I'll present it during the assigned slot in the Taipei meeting. I hope we can have fruitful discussion during the meeting as well as agree on the next steps after it towards its completion. Thanks, Carlos --=20 Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/ GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA 4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67 --=-Uchi3JV0H+GNh42VInA4 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Description: Forwarded message - [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-02.txt Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on antispam.uc3m.es X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb X-Original-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es Delivered-To: cjbc@correo01.uc3m.es Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (pip-L01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.61]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by correo01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1FC8F0D2; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:21:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [12.22.58.30]) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77923835CBE; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:21:41 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1320002484; bh=srhVDyxLmG0XiTnco08vIJKd85lscJ7JOI4adTzkgF4=; h=MIME-Version:From:To:Message-ID:Date:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=WAQwUu/sAGxSy6bOf3u2FlRavsy/EoT/XItsGkuyEIOnC8Lcfvw9MJ7DXPXrkCkCy k4jQBpnBgDpzF+j7YM0ngVV+cmfyFtvj/zmEaA8nFlIKCusqGKxXdiPbJZ63OSbrOK w1THiQwWrYzislzaPxL6xRvoohJLBEzcyTWFUGqE= X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com MIME-Version: 1.0 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.62 Message-ID: <20111030192119.28808.61683.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:21:19 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-02.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: netext-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: netext-bounces@ietf.org X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18482.000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility Author(s) : Carlos J. Bernardos Filename : draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-02.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2011-10-30 Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows a mobile node to connect to the same Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain through different interfaces. However, the ability of movement of selected flows from one access technology to another is missing in the basic Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol. This document describes enhancements to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are required to support network based flow mobility over multiple physical interfaces. This document assumes that the mobile node implements the logical interface model, therefore allowing the support of traffic flows on different physical interfaces regardless of the assigned prefixes on these physical interfaces. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-02.txt _______________________________________________ netext mailing list netext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext --=-Uchi3JV0H+GNh42VInA4-- --=-ySVLq9vqxIytMc7kYZW1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk6tpG4ACgkQNdy6TdFwT2f7igCguhG3il0PNXYlKi22fIH2qmqd XnIAn18uPTriHN588whZreV6pCJZPeuA =8Q/t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ySVLq9vqxIytMc7kYZW1-- From cjbc@it.uc3m.es Sun Oct 30 12:51:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B67921F8B0C for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:51:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QaaR-YCrauwe for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC8C21F8AE9 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:51:19 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from [192.168.1.3] (82.158.121.177.dyn.user.ono.com [82.158.121.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9F39C4E50 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:51:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1320004272.3313.118.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: netext@ietf.org Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:51:12 +0100 Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-DJRthNOeN4oZxNiFLdoo" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-2 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18482.000 Subject: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 19:51:20 -0000 --=-DJRthNOeN4oZxNiFLdoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, I've read draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00 and I have some comments: - I think the document is OK in general. - The normative text of Section 3 needs to be revised. For example, there are lots of normative words in lowercase. - Can a PBU carry more than one ANI option? It is not clearly mentioned, though Figure 1 may indicate it is possible (as there is both BSSID and Geo-Loc shown as part of the identification of the access network. - Figure 3 is not referred in the document. - I think there should be text dealing with the case in which an LMA not supporting/understanding the ANI option receives a PBU carrying one. - It seems that included Nw-ID types are 802.11 related. Is there no other case (e.g., 3GPP related) worth including? - Does the ANI option introduce privacy issues? In case an attacker was able to overhear PBUs, it could be able to know where a particular MN is geographically located. Not sure this is a realistic concern in a real deployment, but authors might want to mention that IPsec encryption could be used to mitigate this problem. Thanks, Carlos --=20 Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/ GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA 4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67 --=-DJRthNOeN4oZxNiFLdoo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk6tqrAACgkQNdy6TdFwT2d8OACgylRlA5rdRw4sI2clUa+BdNZT hSUAnj+hcAdhFsRuVgAlvh/dN0hwFqod =qIar -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-DJRthNOeN4oZxNiFLdoo-- From jong-hyouk.lee@inria.fr Sun Oct 30 13:37:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B819721F8B80 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:37:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.026 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gym+wANk6QRT for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:37:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BEF21F8AC9 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,427,1315173600"; d="scan'208";a="115662522" Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]) by mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 30 Oct 2011 21:37:52 +0100 Received: by wyh11 with SMTP id 11so1797415wyh.27 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:37:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.60.131 with SMTP id p3mr16321149wbh.4.1320007072134; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:37:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.69.18 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:37:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1320004272.3313.118.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> References: <1320004272.3313.118.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> From: Jong-Hyouk Lee Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:37:30 +0100 Message-ID: To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es, Sri Gundavelli Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517511f2aa2b91b04b08a181d Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:37:59 -0000 --001517511f2aa2b91b04b08a181d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all. I would like to add some comments related to location privacy. Plz, see inline. 2011/10/30 Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano > Hi all, > > I've read draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00 and I have some > comments: > > - I think the document is OK in general. > - The normative text of Section 3 needs to be revised. For example, > there are lots of normative words in lowercase. > - Can a PBU carry more than one ANI option? It is not clearly mentioned, > though Figure 1 may indicate it is possible (as there is both BSSID and > Geo-Loc shown as part of the identification of the access network. > - Figure 3 is not referred in the document. > - I think there should be text dealing with the case in which an LMA not > supporting/understanding the ANI option receives a PBU carrying one. > - It seems that included Nw-ID types are 802.11 related. Is there no > other case (e.g., 3GPP related) worth including? > - Does the ANI option introduce privacy issues? In case an attacker was > able to overhear PBUs, it could be able to know where a particular MN is > geographically located. Not sure this is a realistic concern in a real > deployment, but authors might want to mention that IPsec encryption > could be used to mitigate this problem. > Thanks to Carlos's comment, I read again the internet draft and found that the access network identifier option presented in the draft will definitely introduce the location privacy issue of a mobile node if PBU/PBA messages carrying the access network identifier and the mobile node identifier are not protected in terms of confidentiality protection. Even if the PBU/PBA messages are fired from MAGs (infrastructures), those are for mobile nodes. Eavesdroppers easily obtain the current location of mobile nodes and possibly track all the movement of mobile nodes. Note that RFC 5213 does not require the confidentiality protection to PBU/PBA messages. Thanks. > > Thanks, > > Carlos > > -- > Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/ > GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA 4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67 > > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > > --=20 IMARA Team, INRIA, France. Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random. #email: hurryon (at) gmail (dot) com || jong-hyouk.lee (at) inria (dot) fr #webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/ --001517511f2aa2b91b04b08a181d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all.

I would like to add some comments related to l= ocation privacy. Plz, see inline.

2011/10= /30 Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Hi all,

I've read draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00 and I have some comments:

- I think the document is OK in general.
- The normative text of Section 3 needs to be revised. For example,
there are lots of normative words in lowercase.
- Can a PBU carry more than one ANI option? It is not clearly mentioned, though Figure 1 may indicate it is possible (as there is both BSSID and
Geo-Loc shown as part of the identification of the access network.
- Figure 3 is not referred in the document.
- I think there should be text dealing with the case in which an LMA not supporting/understanding the ANI option receives a PBU carrying one.
- It seems that included Nw-ID types are 802.11 related. Is there no
other case (e.g., 3GPP related) worth including?
- Does the ANI option introduce privacy issues? In case an attacker was
able to overhear PBUs, it could be able to know where a particular MN is geographically located. Not sure this is a realistic concern in a real
deployment, but authors might want to mention that IPsec encryption
could be used to mitigate this problem.

Thanks to Carlos's comment, I read again the internet draft and found = that the=C2=A0access network identifier option presented in the draft will = definitely introduce the location privacy issue of a mobile node if PBU/PBA= messages carrying the access network identifier and the mobile node identi= fier are not protected in terms of=C2=A0confidentiality protection.

Even if the PBU/PBA messages are fired from MAGs (infra= structures), those are for mobile nodes.=C2=A0Eavesdroppers easily obtain t= he current location of mobile nodes and possibly track all the movement of = mobile nodes.

Note that RFC 5213 does not require the confidentiality= protection to PBU/PBA messages.

Thanks.
=C2=A0

Thanks,

Carlos

--
Carlos Jes=C3=BAs Bernardos Cano =C2=A0http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA =C2=A04D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
netext@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext




--
IMARA Te= am, INRIA, France.
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null a= nd /dev/random.

#email: hurryon (at) gmail (dot) com || jong-hyouk.l= ee (at) inria (dot) fr
#webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/
--001517511f2aa2b91b04b08a181d-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Oct 30 23:40:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E8421F8B87; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:40:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Dir6yzxvzI4; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:40:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B1A21F845F; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:40:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.62 Message-ID: <20111031064038.26678.88540.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:40:38 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:40:39 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : Xingyue Zhou Jouni Korhonen Carl Williams Sri Gundavelli Filename : draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2011-10-30 DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation can be used to assign a prefix or prefixes to a mobile router for use on the links in the mobile network as specified in [RFC6276] but not supported in Proxy Mobile IPv6. This document specifies an extension to Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for supporting network mobility using DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-01.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 31 16:16:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED72011E837A; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:16:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 357I1nXiGKKC; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8723311E8376; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:16:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.62 Message-ID: <20111031231619.25367.89766.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:16:19 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-04.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:16:20 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Logical Interface Support for multi-mode IP Hosts Author(s) : Telemaco Melia Sri Gundavelli Filename : draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support-04.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2011-10-31 A Logical Interface is a software semantic internal to the host operating system. This semantic is available in all popular operating systems and is used in various protocol implementations. The Logical Interface support is required on the mobile node operating in a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain, for leveraging various network-based mobility management features such as inter-technology handoffs, multihoming and flow mobility support. This document explains the operational details of Logical Interface construct and the specifics on how the link-layer implementations hide the physical interfaces from the IP stack and from the network nodes on the attached access networks. Furthermore, this document identifies the applicability of this approach to various link-layer technologies and analyzes the issues around it when used in context with various mobility management features. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-sup= port-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-supp= ort-04.txt