Mobile Nodes and Multiple Interfaces in IPv6 (monami6)

In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:

       Additional MONAMI6 Web Page

Last Modified: 2006-12-27

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/monami6

Chair(s):

  • Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@inria.fr>

  • Nicolas Montavont <nicolas.montavont@enst-bretagne.fr>

    Internet Area Director(s):

  • Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
  • Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>

    Internet Area Advisor:

  • Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>

    Mailing Lists:

    General Discussion: monami6@ietf.org
    To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
    Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/monami6/current/index.html

    Description of Working Group:

    There is currently rapid development in the area of new wireless
    standards (802.11*, 802.16, 802.20, UMTS, Bluetooth and others). At
    the same time, terminals which have radio and protocol support for
    two, three or even more standards are appearing. This opens the
    possibility of using multiple access types simultaneously, with each
    access used to transport the traffic for which it is most
    appropriate. For instance, an intermittent, but high-bandwidth access
    type might be used for file transfers (e.g. music download) while a
    low-bandwidth, high reliability access might simultaneously be used
    for a voice call.

    In the meantime, IP-level mobility support protocols such as Mobile
    IPv6 (RFC 3775) and NEMO Basic Support (RFC 3963) have been conceived
    by the IETF to support handoffs for IPv6 mobile hosts and routers,
    respectively.

    However, these protocols do not today provide standardized support for
    simultaneous differentiated use of multiple access technologies,
    although several proposals exist for such support, and some of them
    have been implemented and tested.

    When a mobile host/router uses multiple network interfaces
    simultaneously, or when multiple prefixes are available on a single
    network interface, the mobile host/router would end up with multiple
    Care-of Addresses (CoAs). In addition, the Home Agent might be
    attached to multiple network interfaces, or to a single network
    interface with multiple prefixes, hence resulting in the option to use
    multiple IP addresses for the Home Agent. This could result in the
    possibility of using a multitude of bi-directional tunnels between
    pairs of {Home Agent address, CoA} and a number of associated issues:
    establishment, selection and modification of multiple simultaneous
    tunnels. Some of the issues are very specific to mobility and are
    generally applicable to both mobile hosts and mobile routers using
    Mobile IPv6 and NEMO Basic Support respectively. Some of these issues
    can be resolved with relatively small and straight-forward changes to
    Mobile IPv6 and NEMO Basic Support (e.g. multiple CoAs registration).

    The objective of the Monami6 WG is to produce a clear problem
    statement and to produce standard track specifications to the
    straight-forward problems associated with the simultaneous use of
    multiple addresses for either mobile hosts using Mobile IPv6 or mobile
    routers using NEMO Basic Support and their variants (FMIPv6, HMIPv6,
    etc). Where the effects of having multiple prefixes on a single
    interface is identical to the effects of having multiple interfaces
    each with a single prefix, Monami6 will consider a generalized
    approach to cater for multiple prefixes available to a mobile
    host/router. Once this is done, the WG might re-charter in order to
    work on more generic issues that prevent taking advantage of the
    multiple CoAs and HoAs available to mobile nodes and routers.

    The WG does not plan to define a tunnel selection mechanism, but may
    document how to use existing mechanisms based upon preferences or
    policies. In particular, the WG will consider that a tunnel
    is alive as long as packets can be exchanged with the corresponding
    peer. In addition, local information, such as interface up/down
    events, or other failure detection mechanisms can be used to quickly
    detect failure of tunnel(s).

    WG Deliverables:

    - A document explaining the motivations for a node using multiple
    interfaces and the scenarios where it may end up with multiple
    global addresses on its interfaces [Informational]

    - An analysis document explaining what are the limitations for
    mobile hosts using multiple simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home
    Agent addresses using Mobile IPv6, whether issues are specific to
    Mobile IPv6 or not [Informational].

    - A protocol extension to Mobile IPv6 (RFC 3775) and NEMO Basic
    Support (RFC 3963) to support the registration of multiple Care-of
    Addresses at a given Home Agent address [Standard Track].

    - A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of
    policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the
    Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the
    Care-of Address and Home Agent address [Standard Track].

    Goals and Milestones:

    Dec 2006  Submit Multiple CoA Registration to IESG
    Mar 2007  Submit Motivations and Scenario to IESG
    Mar 2007  Submit Analysis of the use of Multiple Simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home Agent addresses in Mobile IPv6
    Jun 2007  Submit Flow/binding policies exchange to IESG

    Internet-Drafts:

    Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6 (68674 bytes)
    Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple Interfaces and Global Addresses (46468 bytes)
    Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration (78755 bytes)

    No Request For Comments

    IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.

    Return to working group directory.

    Return to IETF home page.