Subject: [DMM] Maintenance of Mobile IPv6

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:15:04 +0100

Hello,

There are a few things that I think are needed for the maintenance of 
protocol Mobile IPv6; most important appear first:

- help with automated portal authentication in WLAN.  Hopping on and
   off from a WiFi hotspot to another, even without moving physically,
   is often obstructed by web portal authentication requiring user
   to type to fill forms; this is not only inconvenient, but in some
   cases it is impossible, like with vehicular networks where the
   driver is forbidden by law to type while behind the wheel.

- bugs in an otherwise reliable Mobile IPv6 implementation of
   a particular equipment manufacturer (HA never deletes a tunnel,
   lifetime: remaining never): should the bugs be corrected or shoudl
   the spec modified to reflect what the implementation actually
   does?  Should protocol workarounds be designed to deal with this
   problem?

- future of the maintenance of the linux open source Mobile IPv6
   implementation: just for my clarification - is it still ok?  Is there
   some project behind it?  Or is it dying?  Currently the email list
   seems silent, and the latest software releases date back to more than
   one year.

- elimination, or reducing the effect, of the necessity of the 'focal
   point' Home Agent: route optimization for the masses and for moving
   networks as deployed in vehicles.

- Mobile IPv6 and IPv6 NAT Traversal;

- IPv6 NAT in a moving network;

- bypassing Mobile IPv6 implementation (and use IPv6 NATting) in cases
   of particular applications, based on destination IPv6 address and
   IPv6-only-when-reversed FQDN name.

- the use of ULAs combined with Global addresses, with Mobile IPv6
   (e.g. ULA HoA but GUA CoA, or reverse).

What do you think?

Alex

---

From: Jouni <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:34:50 +0200

On Oct 29, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> There are a few things that I think are needed for the maintenance of protocol Mobile IPv6; most important appear first:
> 

Maintenance or new features?

The best you can do is to write an I-D of your idea/topic/fix/enhancement
and the WG and chairs determine whether the I-D is about a new feature or
maintenance.

- Jouni

> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:03:30 +0100

> Maintenance or new features?

I hear you.

 >>   does?  Should protocol workarounds be designed to deal with this

This is of utmost importance in some deployments.  We struggled with it 
extensively only to conclude that Mobile IPv6 is no longer important.

Now, I do not know whether one can sense the importance of these little 
words above, which circulated mostly in private.

> and the WG and chairs determine whether the I-D is about a new feature or

Ok, thank you for the invitation, I am happy.

Let me start by drawing attention to these items on this email list, first.

So, once again, what do you think about these topics of maintenance of 
Mobile IPv6?

Alex

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

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:19:37 -0700

Hello Alex and all,

Interesting discussion.  Here's my take.

I would love to work on this.  If you have ideas, please describe.

>   does?  Should protocol workarounds be designed to deal with this

My answers: (1) no, and (2) not within [dmm].

>   seems silent, and the latest software releases date back to more than

If [dmm] shows itself to be a credible force, the open source problems
will naturally get the proper attention.  But it shouldn't be on the
[dmm] charter.

>   networks as deployed in vehicles.

Isn't this already on the radar for [dmm]?

>   (e.g. ULA HoA but GUA CoA, or reverse).

For these four items, it will depend on whether there is a constituency
for action.

And, one more thing:

On 10/29/2014 10:46 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Le 29/10/2014 18:40, Brian Haberman a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/14 1:33 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree yes.  Are there enhancements that can be made to the Mobile 
>>> IPv6
>>> specs in particular RFC6275, RFC3963, RFC4877, RFC6276.
>>
>> I personally do not know.  But as Jouni suggested, write a draft on the
>> enhancements you want to see and get feedback.
>
> Brian - thank you for the invitation.  Maybe I will do.
>
> Now that the deadline passed it's for the next year.  I will keep a 
> mark on these emails.

You don't have to wait!  In fact you can submit a draft even on the
first day of the IETF.

For the four topics above, that would be very appropriate, I think.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 20:05:58 -0700

This email to the list bounced earlier today...!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [DMM] Maintenance of Mobile IPv6
Date: 	Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:19:37 -0700
From: 	Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
To: 	Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
CC: 	[email-masked] <[email-masked]>

Hello Alex and all,

And, one more thing:

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:17:46 -0400

Charlie,
     Actually, it did make it to the list.  I suspect that someone on
the list had a MTA/MUA issue that caused a mail routing loop.  That
routing loop was the basis for the bounce message to you.

Brian

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:07:27 +0000

I also received a bounce message, but the archives look correct:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/maillist.html

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 6:18 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Fwd: Re: Maintenance of Mobile IPv6
> 
> Charlie,