Subject: [netext] final charter text

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:34:41 +0200

Hi all,

I would like to propose the following charter text as the one to be 
approved on IESG's meeting on Thursday. The relevant points to make are:

1) There's slightly changed text on the assumption, based on 
Jual-Carlos' observation that the initial assumption did not cover all 
situations. I think we need to correct this mistake. And I do agree with 
Julien that we need to state the assumptions.

2) I would like to keep the milestone that asks the WG to determine what 
specific deliverables it will produce for the backend protocol 
extensions. I am happy that we have an initial idea, but I want to see 
this as an explicit milestone for management purposes.

3) Lets stop fine-tuning the charter text and get to actually doing this 
stuff.

Jari

Mobility Extensions (netext)

Last Modified: 2010-02-01

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/netext

Chair(s):

    * Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
    * Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Director(s):

    * Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
    * Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:

    * Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/current/maillist.html

Description of Working Group:

Proxy Mobile IPv6, specified in RFC 5213, is a network-based mobility
protocol. It uses a Mobile Access Gateway (MAG) and a Local Mobility
Anchor (LMA) to allow hosts to move around within a domain while keeping
their address or address prefix stable. Proxy Mobile IPv6 has been
incorporated into a number of products and deployments are starting.
Certain deployment considerations, including localized routing and bulk
refresh of lifetime are already emerging.

The working group will focus on the following topics relevant for
network-based mobility:

Localized Routing: a specification for routing traffic between the
MAG(s) without involving the LMA. That is, allow the MAGs to route
traffic between hosts from one MAG to another, without being tunneled
all the way to the LMA. This reduces latency and backhaul load.
Applications such as voice can benefit from the reduced latency.
The working group will produce a problem statement and a
specification of the localized routing mechanism.

Bulk Refresh: a specification of improving the signaling load for
binding lifetime refresh. The current specifications call for the
handling of each mobility session independent of each other. When a
large number of hosts are served by a single MAG, a periodic refresh of
the binding lifetimes can lead to a signaling storm. The purpose of the
Bulk Refresh feature is to construct a protocol feature that allows such
refreshes to occur on a per-MAG basis.

LMA Redirection: a specification for allowing an LMA to redirect a MAG
to another LMA. This is primarily needed as a way to perform load
balancing. This functionality is complementary to implementation
techniques that allow distributed MAG implementations to move tasks
around without a visible impact at the protocol level, and the
initial LMA discovery work in the NETLMM WG. An applicability statement
describing the situations where the new functionality is or is not
applicable has to be included in the specification.

Hiding access technology changes from host IP layer: Proxy mobility is
based on the assumption that changes in host IP stacks are
undesirable.  However, link layer implementations can hide the
actually used physical interfaces from the IP stack. For instance, a
"logical interface" at the IP layer may enable packet transmission and
reception over different physical media.  Such techniques can be used
to achieve inter-access handovers or flow mobility, i.e., the movement
of selected flows from one access technology to another.  It is
assumed that that an IP layer interface can simultaneously and/or
sequentially attach to multiple MAGs (possibly over multiple media).
The hiding mechanisms also need to work together with existing RFC
5213 handover hint mechanisms.  The specification of any actual link
layer mechanisms is outside the scope of the working group, but the
group works on the following:

- Informational applicability statement that analyzes the issues
  involved with this approach and characterizes the contexts in which
  such use is or is not appropriate.

- The working group will determine what protocol extensions are
  required between the Proxy Mobile IPv6 network nodes (MAGs and LMAs)
  to support the ability for an interface (at the IP layer) to
  transmit packets over different media, the ability to distribute
  specific traffic flows on different media components of that
  interface, and making this work with the handover hints in the base
  protocol. The relevant protocol extensions will be developed as
  necessary.

Radius Extensions to PMIP6: In order to enable network based
mobility using PMIP6, the policy profile needs to signal a set of
attributes and policies to the MAG and LMA. New Radius attributes
need to be specified that are relevant to PMIP6 based
mobility. This work item will specify Radius extensions and
attributes specific to PMIP6.

The work in this charter is entirely internal to the network and does
not affect host IP stack operation in any way (except perhaps through
impacting packet forwarding capacity visible to the hosts). The working
group is not allowed to specify new IP layer protocol mechanisms to signal
mobility related events between the host and the network.

The proposed activity will be complementary to the existing IETF Working
Groups, notably the NETLMM and MEXT WGs. The NETEXT working group will
also act as the primary forum where new extensions on top of the Proxy
Mobile IPv6 protocol can be developed. The addition of such new
extensions to the working group involves addition of the extension to
this charter through the normal rechartering process.

Goals and Milestones:

Done          WG chartered
Done          Initial WG draft on Bulk Refresh
Done          Decision on the inclusion of possible additional work items
Done          Initial WG draft on LMA Redirection
Done          Initial WG draft on Localized Routing Problem Statement
Mar 2010          Submit Bulk Refresh to IESG for publication as a 
Proposed Standard RFC
Mar 2010          Submit LMA Redirection to IESG for publication as a 
Proposed Standard RFC
Mar 2010        Initial WG document on RADIUS extensions to PMIP6
May 2010          Submit Localized Routing Problem Statement to IESG for 
publication as an Informational RFC
May 2010        Initial WG draft on Localized Routing Solution
Jul 2010        Initial WG document on Applicability Statement on 
Logical Interface over Multiple Physical Interfaces
Jul 2010        WG decision on what Proxy Mobile IPv6 support is needed 
to support logical lnterface over multiple physical interfaces
Oct 2010        Initial WG document(s) on Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions 
to Support Logical Interface over Multiple Physical Interfaces
Dec 2010        Submit RADIUS extensions to PMIP6 to IESG for 
publication as a Proposed Standard
Dec 2010        Submit Applicability Statement on Logical Interface over 
Multiple Physical Interfaces to IESG for publication as Informational RFC
Feb 2011        Submit Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Logical 
Interface over Multiple Physical Interfaces for publication as Proposed 
Standard RFC(s)
Feb 2011          Submit Localized Routing Solution to IESG for 
publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

---

From: "Laganier, Julien" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 06:52:11 -0800

Hi Jari,

The following charter text is fine with me.

Thanks.

--julien

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 1:35 AM
> To: [email-masked]; IESG
> Subject: [netext] final charter text
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> situations. I think we need to correct this mistake. And I do agree
> with Julien that we need to state the assumptions.
> 
> 2) I would like to keep the milestone that asks the WG to determine
> what specific deliverables it will produce for the backend protocol
> 3) Lets stop fine-tuning the charter text and get to actually doing
> this stuff.
> 
> Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

---

From: "Zuniga, Juan Carlos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:42:01 -0500

Hi Jari,

The text is also fine with me too.

Thanks,

Juan-Carlos

> Behalf Of Laganier, Julien
> Sent: Monday, 01 February, 2010 9:52 AM
> To: Jari Arkko; [email-masked]; IESG
> Subject: Re: [netext] final charter text
> 
> Hi Jari,
> 
> > Multiple Physical Interfaces to IESG for publication as
Informational
> > RFC

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 18:45:51 +0100

Jari,

The charter text is fine. Lets move forward with getting IESG approval and
start working on the deliverables.

-Raj

---

From: "Koodli, Rajeev" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 13:12:28 -0500

Hi Jari,
 
sorry, I would like to make sure, given the cycles spent on this, we are on the same page here..

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Jari Arkko
Sent: Mon 2/1/2010 1:34 AM
To: [email-masked]; IESG
Subject: [netext] final charter text

[snip].

Rajeev:> This means supporting Flow Mobility and Inter-access handovers (on a logical interface over multiple physical interfaces) right?

I would like this to be explicit, such as:

NEW:

Jul 2010        WG decision on what Proxy Mobile IPv6 support is needed
to support flow mobility and inter-accss handovers on a logical lnterface over multiple physical interfaces

Similarly,

OLD: 

NEW:

Oct 2010        Initial WG document(s) on Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions
to Support Flow mobility and Inter-accss handovers on a Logical Interface over Multiple Physical Interfaces

OLD:

NEW:

Feb 2011        Submit Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility and Inter-acces handovers on a Logical
Interface over Multiple Physical Interfaces for publication as Proposed Standard RFC(s)

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:44:05 -0800 (PST)

----- Original Message ----
> From: "Laganier, Julien" <[email-masked]>
> To: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>; "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>; IESG <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Mon, February 1, 2010 8:52:11 AM

+1

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Junghoon Jee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:27:55 +0900

Hi all,

I agree with Rajeev that we need to explicitly mention about "Flow Mobility and Inter-access Handovers" in the deliverable items.

Also minor edits are found from the proposed charter texts.

> Mobility Extensions (netext)

I think above meant to be "Network-Based Mobility Extensions (netext)".

> of selected flows from one access technology to another.  

> It is assumed that that an IP layer interface can simultaneously and/or

Double 'that' so the sentence should be the following. 
"It is assumed that an IP layer interface can simultaneously and/or
sequentially attach to multiple MAGs (possibly over multiple media)."

- Junghoon

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:39:17 +0200

Rajeev,

> to support flow mobility and inter-accss handovers on a logical lnterface over multiple physical interfaces

Fine for me.

> Interface over Multiple Physical Interfaces for publication as Proposed Standard RFC(s)

Also fine, though a bit lengthy...

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:39:27 +0200

Junghoon,

Ha! Good catch.

Right. Thanks for the careful review.

Jari