Re: [MEXT] [mif] Multiple interfaces problems in MEXT and mif

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>]

makes sense to me



Marc Blanchet escribió:
> marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>   
> > Hi,
> >
> > In the current MEXT charter there are several items about supporting
> > multiple interfaces, including the following two:
> >
> > - 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].
> >
> > I think this is very similar to the scope of one of you documents at
> > least, so i would find very strange that the same work is chartered in
> > two different working groups.
> >
> > Moreover, we do have wg documents for these two, but we find very hard
> > to find reviewers for those, which makes me think that there is not much
> > interest on these. So, if you find a more motivated crew to do the work,
> > that would be great, we can either do it in mext or soemwhere else, if
> > people feels that needs to be done, but that is certainly not the
> > feeling i am getting from the input in mext
> >     
>
> to me, the main difference is that the 'multiple interface' issue is not
> bound to mobility, and more specifically to mobility protocols
> (mobileIPv4, mobileipv6, nemo, ...).
>
> Therefore, the MIF work is not scoping about mobility protocols and
> shall not require mobility protocols.
>
> I would see that if some part of the MIF work is looking at the mobility
> protocols, then these should be then "transfered" to MEXT.
>
> Marc.
>
>   
> > Regards, marcelo
> >
> >
> >
> > Hong Yong-Geun escribió:
> >     
> > > Hi, all in MEXT and mif.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > In IETF mif (Multiple Interface) mailing list
> > > (_https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif_
> > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>),
> > >
> > > we now discuss the host which would like to use multiple interfaces.
> > >
> > > I understand that MEXT WG is also related to the use of multiple
> > > interfaces of a host
> > > using Mobile IPv6 or a mobile router using NEMO Basic Support and
> > > their variants
> > >
> > > MEXT WG is focuing on monami6 related topic (multiple CoA, Multiple
> > > HoA, and Multple HA, etc.,)
> > > and extedning Mobile IPv6 and NEMO for these, but mif is not related
> > > to this direction.
> > > In mif, source address selection, routing and DNS control protocol are
> > > consideration items
> > > due to multiple interfaces of a host.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > For mif’s scope, Jari Arkko made some comments and classification of
> > > problems.
> > >
> > > _http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg00050.html_
> > >
> > > Among these classification which includes access selection, split DNS,
> > > configuration reconciliation,
> > > routing, address selection, tunnel multihoming, and the communication
> > > way between the host and
> > > the network about their policies regarding all of the above, Jari said
> > > that access selection is already
> > > coverd in RFC 5113 and tunnel multihoming is already covered in MEXT
> > > WG work items.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > At monami6 WG in 64th IETF meetinng, I submitted and presented two
> > > Internet Drafts.
> > >
> > > - Analysis of multiple interfaces in a Mobile Node
> > >
> > > _http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hong-multipleif-mn-pb-statement-00.txt_
> > >
> > > - Virtual network interface for multiple interfaces in a Mobile node
> > > using Mobile IPv6
> > >
> > > _http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hong-virtualif-mn-mipv6-00.txt_
> > > <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hong-virtualif-mn-mipv6-00.txt>
> > >
> > > Because these two drafts were not in the monami6 WG’s scope and
> > > virtual network interface draft was
> > >
> > > implementation specific, there were not adoped in monami6 WG’s work
> > > items. The intentions of two drafts
> > > are supporting multiple interfaces of a host without extending Mobile
> > > IPv6/NEMO.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > I think that multiple interfaces problems of a host are related to
> > > both Mobile IP/NEMO specific issues and
> > > general network issues. Mobile IP/NEMO specific issues are related to
> > > extending of Mobile IP/NEMO and
> > > these are already studied in MEXT WG and general network issues which
> > > were not related to
> > > Mobile IP/NEMO could be studied in mif. As same manner, I think that
> > > my drafts could be discussed and
> > > developed in mif. In the first draft (Analysis document), I classified
> > > multiple interface problems into
> > > Mobile IPv6-sepcific issues, General network issues, and heterogeneous
> > > environment issues.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Including Hui Deng in mif, with regarding to these drafts, they want
> > > to hear comments from MEXT WG’s point of view,
> > > because it seems that these drafts are quite related to monami6/MEXT
> > > WG. So, I ask MEXT to review whether there are
> > >
> > > some overlap between MEXT works and my drafts or not.
> > >
> > > It is appreciate to give comments.
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Best regards.
> > >
> > > Yong-Geun.
> > >
> > >       
> > _______________________________________________
> > mif mailing list
> > mif at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
> >     
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext