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