Subject: [nemo] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt]

From: Chan-Wah Ng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:25:29 +0800

Hello, NEMO ML,

see the forwarded message for the new version of multihoming draft.
Please take a look at it, and in a very short while, I will post a seed
mail to gather comments and suggestions for moving forward.

Thanks

/rgds
/cwng

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:37:04 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: Multi-Homing Issues in Bi-Directional Tunneling
	Author(s)	: C. Ng, J. Charbon
	Filename	: draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt
	Pages		: 32
	Date		: 2003-10-23
	
This document describes deployment scenario of multi-homed Network in
Motion (NEMO) and attempts to identify issues that arises when
supporting multi-homing in NEMO. It is also the objective of this
document to build a full taxonomy covering multi-homed scenarios in
NEMO, so as to facilitate explorations into this aspect of NEMO.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

________________________________________________________________________
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID:	<[email-masked]>
Q29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0L3BsYWluCkNvbnRlbnQtSUQ6CTwyMDAzLTEwLTI0MTAyMTUyLkkt
REBpZXRmLm9yZz4KCkVOQ09ESU5HIG1pbWUKRklMRSAvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LW5n
LW5lbW8tbXVsdGlob21pbmctaXNzdWVzLTAyLnR4dAo=
Q29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0L3BsYWluCkNvbnRlbnQtSUQ6CTwyMDAzLTEwLTI0MTAyMTUyLkkt
REBpZXRmLm9yZz4K

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:48:43 +0800

Hello, NEMO WG,

Here is a quick summary of changes to the new draft (differences between
-01 and -02).

taxonomy:  
I have included Erik's insights on subscriptions-based versus single
ownership of NEMO and its home domain(s).

Analysis:
Have tried to incorporate ideas from Julien's evaluation draft, and
describe the benefits of multihoming, grouped into 2 main categories:
Fault Tolerance, Load Sharing.

Like to seek comments from the WG on the draft, especially on the
following points:

- Are the scenarios/taxonomy representative enough?

- Or are they too complex, too many of them?  If so, what can be
dropped?

The objective is to merge the multihoming drafts as one WG draft.  The
question now is the scope and objectives of the WG draft.  Presently,
this is my initial take.

- To capture the different scenarios for multihoming in Basic NEMO
- To specify what are the scenarios supported by basic NEMO
- To identify issues in these scenarios

I am sure there is more to add.  Do add in your thoughts on this so that
we can formalized them in the Minneapolis Meeting.

/rgds
/cwng

On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 19:25, Chan-Wah Ng wrote:
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Content-Type: text/plain
> ENCODING mime
> FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Content-Type: text/plain

---

From: Chan-Wah NG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:48:43 +0800

Hello, NEMO WG,

taxonomy:  

Analysis:

/rgds
/cwng

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:49:03 +0100

> The objective is to merge the multihoming drafts as one WG draft.

Hello Chan-Wah,

I agree that it would be good to join all the NEMO multi-homing drafts
together into only one.  This would consolidate the common multi-homing
issues and present the reader a simpler view of multi-homing related to
moving networks.

One should also consider that there was some proposal for multi-homing
discussion in the MIP6 WG as well.  Do you know whether a "multi-homing"
slot was allocated for the forthcoming MIP6 meeting?  What would be the
interactions between the MIP6 multi-homing work and the NEMO
multi-homing work.

At the same time, I've noticed a DT was working in the Multi6 WG
multi-homing and two drafts are out now.  How would NEMO WG
multi-homing position itself with respect to this multi6 effort?

And, finally, I believe that the HIP BoF is also looking forward to 
working on multi-homing aspects for mobility.

Now coming back to the NEMO WG Charter, I find that it does mention
"multi-homed network" in the opening statements, but I don't think it
has multi-homing action points in the "will" and "will work on".  So I'm
not sure about the NEMO supposedly unique multi-homing document to
become a WG item.  I mean I would oppose that, unless charter modified.
  I'm not saying that that document is not useful, it's just about being
or not being NEMO WG item.

Alex
GBU

Chan-Wah NG wrote:
> Hello, NEMO WG,
> 
> Here is a quick summary of changes to the new draft (differences 
> between -01 and -02).
> 
> taxonomy: I have included Erik's insights on subscriptions-based 
> versus single ownership of NEMO and its home domain(s).
> 
> 

  The
> - To capture the different scenarios for multihoming in Basic NEMO -
>  To specify what are the scenarios supported by basic NEMO - To 
> identify issues in these scenarios
> 
> I am sure there is more to add.  Do add in your thoughts on this so 
> that we can formalized them in the Minneapolis Meeting.
> 
> /rgds /cwng
> 
> 
>>  Please take a look at it, and in a very short while, I will post a
>>  seed mail to gather comments and suggestions for moving forward.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> /rgds /cwng
>> 
>> 
>> -----Forwarded Message----- From: [email-masked] Subject:
>>  I-D ACTION:draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt Date: Fri, 24 
>> Oct 2003 10:37:04 -0400
>> 
>> Title		: Multi-Homing Issues in Bi-Directional Tunneling Author(s)
>>  : C. Ng, J. Charbon Filename	: 
>> draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt Pages		: 32 Date		: 
>> 2003-10-23  This document describes deployment scenario of 
>> multi-homed Network in Motion (NEMO) and attempts to identify 
>> issues that arises when supporting multi-homing in NEMO. It is also
>>  the objective of this document to build a full taxonomy covering 
>> multi-homed scenarios in NEMO, so as to facilitate explorations 
>> into this aspect of NEMO.
>> 
>> To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message
>>  to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of
>>  the message.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
>>  username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After
>>  logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get 
>> draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt".
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or 
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>> 
>> 
>> Send a message to: [email-masked]. In the body type: "FILE 
>> /internet-drafts/draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt".  NOTE: 
>> The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded
>>  form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this feature, insert 
>> the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command.  To decode 
>> the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail 
>> reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different 
>> behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages 
>> (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), 
>> so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these 
>> messages.   Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant 
>> mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII 
>> version of the Internet-Draft.
>> 
>>  Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 
>> <[email-masked]>
>> 
>>  Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 
>> <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> ENCODING mime FILE 
>> /internet-drafts/draft-ng-nemo-multihoming-issues-02.txt
>> 
>>  Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 
>> <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:49:03 +0100

Hello Chan-Wah,

Alex
GBU

  The

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:25:02 +0900

Hi Alex,

> interactions between the MIP6 multi-homing work and the NEMO

Chairs of the MIP6 don't agree to discuss multihoming although we
requested (and insisted) for a slot and that a few drafts are out on
this matter:
- draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-02.txt
- draft-montavont-mip6-mmi-01.txt
- draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-00.txt
- draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering-v6-00.txt
and others.

So, there is going to be an unformal bar BOF to discuss multihoming and
filtering aspects (see James Kempf announcement in the MIP6 WG).

> multi-homing position itself with respect to this multi6 effort?

This is different, terminology may be common, but the MULTI6 WG mostly
addresses scalability issues when a network route is announced in
multiple ISPs. Route table entries grows with the number of network a
subnetwork is connected to.

> working on multi-homing aspects for mobility.

Let's say the mobility and multihoming have similar problems and thus
probably similar solutions; a solution for multihoming may be mobility
while a solution for mobility may be multihoming. The HIP BOF is to
investigate a new addressing architecture and ways to better support
open issues such as mobility and multihoming.

> or not being NEMO WG item.

The WG has agreed that it needs to devise a document on the multihoming
issue at last IETF. But, so far, we haven't decided what will be put in
the document. Also, it was pointed out during the meeting that we need
to list what are the multihoming scenarios relevant to NEMO.

Thierry.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:25:02 +0900

Hi Alex,

Thierry.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:48:47 +0100

Thierry Ernst wrote:
>> One should also consider that there was some proposal for
>> multi-homing discussion in the MIP6 WG as well.  Do you know
>> whether a "multi-homing" slot was allocated for the forthcoming
>> MIP6 meeting?  What would be the interactions between the MIP6
>> multi-homing work and the NEMO multi-homing work.
> 
> this matter: - draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-02.txt -
> draft-montavont-mip6-mmi-01.txt -
> draft-montavont-mobileip-multihoming-pb-statement-00.txt -
> draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering-v6-00.txt and others.

Lack of consistency between MIP6 and NEMO?  MIP6 won't treat of
multi-homing but NEMO would?  Isn't NEMO entirely based on Mobile IPv6?

> So, there is going to be an unformal bar BOF to discuss multihoming
> and filtering aspects (see James Kempf announcement in the MIP6 WG).

So if the James Kempf bar BoF takes multi-homing (and filtering and
switching) seriously, maybe they'd take on the NEMO multi-homing as well.

> This is different, terminology may be common, but the MULTI6 WG
> mostly addresses scalability issues when a network route is announced
> in multiple ISPs. Route table entries grows with the number of
> network a subnetwork is connected to.

A-ha.  And the mobile network being connected by several interfaces to a
same home link (through the bidir tunnels) would not involve similar
growth in the routing tables of the routers in the home domain?  To me
it's the same problem.

>  probably similar solutions; a solution for multihoming may be
> mobility while a solution for mobility may be multihoming. The HIP
> BOF is to investigate a new addressing architecture and ways to
> better support open issues such as mobility and multihoming.

A-ha.

>>  "multi-homed network" in the opening statements, but I don't think
>> it has multi-homing action points in the "will" and "will work on".
>> So I'm not sure about the NEMO supposedly unique multi-homing
>> document to become a WG item.  I mean I would oppose that, unless
>> charter modified. I'm not saying that that document is not useful,
>> it's just about being or not being NEMO WG item.
> 
> 
> The WG has agreed that it needs to devise a document on the
> multihoming issue at last IETF. But, so far, we haven't decided what
> will be put in the document. Also, it was pointed out during the
> meeting that we need to list what are the multihoming scenarios
> relevant to NEMO.

Ok that.  So if the question about it becoming a WG item comes out I
would oppose it unless Charter modified.

Alex
GBU

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:48:47 +0100

A-ha.

Alex
GBU

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:13:55 +0900

Hi,

> multi-homing but NEMO would?  Isn't NEMO entirely based on Mobile IPv6?

Asks this to the NEMO chairs. They said that if there is active
discussion on the ML they might consider a slot to discuss the question.
 
> switching) seriously, maybe they'd take on the NEMO multi-homing as well.

The issue will be raised if someone raise it; at least I will. But it's
just a BAR bof. Just a discussion. No body knows how the discussion may
turn to. 

> growth in the routing tables of the routers in the home domain?  To me

A mobile network being multihomed does not necesserily make the routing
tables growing. It may, and this case is covered by multi6. But multi6
does not consider the other issues which arise for multihomed hosts and
networks.

> would oppose it unless Charter modified.

The working group has agreed to have a
draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-something. The something is not clear yet.
Once it's clear it will be listed as a WG milestone. So, of course the
charter will be updated to list the new item.

Thierry.

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:13:55 +0900

Hi,

 

Thierry.