MOBOPTS Meeting: IETF 72 Date: Wednesday, July 29, 2008, 9 AM Location: Rathcoole Minute Taker: Ashutosh Dutta MOBOPTS RG Co-chair, Rajeev Koodli chaired the session. There were about sixty people who attended the Mobopts session. Rajeev provided the overview of the agenda and asked for any comments from the audience. Chair also asked for any new area of work. Chair discussed the status of the RG documents. Following are RG documents and their status: MIP6 Location Privacy Solutions: draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-08.txt IRSG review has been done. Significant revision has been made Media-Independent Pre-Authentication Framework: draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-03.txtRG LC New revision produced. This needs further discussion in the research group before it is sent for IRSG review. Multicast Mobility: draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-04.txt Is probably ready for RG LC? CN-targetted Location Privacy: draft-irtf-mobopts-mip6-cnlocpriv-01.txt has been expired. (Expired). Killien is on leave, CN location privacy needs to be updated He also introduced the IRTF chair Aaron Falk who updated the group about GENI later on. ***********************Talk 1************* Rajeev gave an overview of location privacy draft and then went into describing the details of the draft and the changes that have been made in the revised version. Rajeev then provided the details of the updated draft draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-08.txt. There were no questions after his presentation. *******************Talk 2********************************* Ashutosh provided an overview of the MPA draft, its implementation status and then described how the comments from RGLC were reflected in the revised version of the draft. Ashutosh asked for any new comments that can be incorporated in the revised version of the draft. There were few questions: Questions and Answers: ******************** Rajeev (with chair hat on): People will take a look at the revised MPA draft, send comments and then it will be sent to IRSG Rajeev: It will be better if the authors can put the results in appendix just like Layer 2 abstraction RFC 5184 does. Rajeev: One needs to start a little bit in advance pre-auth start for inter-domain handover. In case of inter-domain handover, how much advance does MPA need to start to obtain a comparative result to 802.11i. Some guidelines are needed. These guidelines should be added in the revised draft. Ashutosh: Some of these guidelines will be included in the revised version of the draft. Subir: It's good to look at 802.11r as well for a better data point to compare. Ashutosh: However, 802.11r does not discuss inter-domain handover *******************Talk 4******************************************** GENI – Talk – Aaron Falk Aron Falk gave a very interesting talk about GENI’s current status and future direction. Global Engineering Architect – falk@bbn.com GENI’s vision : A national scale suite of facilities to explore radical designs for a Future global networking infrastructure Virtualization Programmable &federated with end-to-end virtualized slices Which operating system Science, Technology, Society Operations, NSF clearing House, Federations, Researchers, GENI aggregates Gave an overview of GENI system concept Ability to share the group of nodes www.geni.net Spiral development model December – solicited proposals for prototyping Proposal selection needs to see more on security Creates an end-to-end GENI prototype in 6-12 months Substrates, control framework with federation, experiment workflow, user opt-in Operations, Management and Security 3rd meeting – 3 times a year, 3rd meeting Oct. 28-30 2008 in Palo Alto Systematic open view Proposals solicit Over 70 proposals received, 5 page proposal Second solicitation planned for late 2008/early 2009 GENI Spiral 1 is now underway! Questions and Answers on GENI: Question 1 – Person from Sun Micro – Can you say more about the optical nodes? Ans: Generally interested in programmable optics, infrastructure-based wireless, Cross layer development. Need to see pool from research community. There is a whole research going in NSF to find out what is a requirement for GENI? Purpose of Charlie Perkins: What GENI will involve for a while and will it remain stable for a while Ans: we are in the planning and prototyping phase. Experimenters would be very important part of trying to figure out. No firm idea when the transition is going to be more stable. Charlie: Need to imagine at least 6 to 7 years of life time of project Ans: We have 4 years left. GENI has changed a lot from a very high budget to low budget. Folks should bring their own testbed and try it out. Charlie: If somebody wants to build a signaling protocol for wireless, could GENI help to make use of or scale the experiment Ans: We do not expect everybody to start from ground up. Some of these would be tools GENI needs to provide service abstraction. We expect the research community to develop these Thomas: How open this would be to non-US organization Aaron: Short answer is I do not know, we encourage US-based participation Fully expect to see commercial facilities to be part of GENI. We need to have requirement where people can do that so that commercial companies. More people wanted to ask questions, but because of lack of time Rajeev had to stop the Q/A session. ***********************Talk 5************************************** Update on Multicast Mobility draft: draft-irtf-mobopts-mmcastv6-ps-04.txt Thomas provided an outline of the draft and then stated the status of the draft. There have been two major updates since IETF-70. A new author has been added. There has been an extended discussion on transport issues. A new pointer has been added to multicast-in-multicast encapsulation. New texts have been added to take care of multicast for MIPv6, including multicast listener mobility and multicast sender mobility. Multicast application maybe layered. Thus, IPv6 convergence sub-layer (RFC 5121) needs to be introduced. Many deployment Issues were also discussed: Structural aspects of multicast routing trees under mobility were discussed as well. Question and Answer: ******************* Ashutosh: Does this draft discuss about the mobility between Multicast enabled – Non-Multicast enabled networks Thomas: Yes, it is part of the problem statement draft. Rajeev with chair hat on: WGLC will be issued on this draft. ****************************** Talk 5********************************** Hybrid Shared Trees, DHTs with Native IP Routing: Thomas described the details of this research item. Mobility Agnostic Environment BIDIR PIMs Architectural Approach Interdomain Multicast in a transparent fashion BIDIR-SAM Gave a performance overview. There was not enough time to discuss the results. It needs more time to discuss new things. *******************Talk 6**************************** Chan-Wah Ng gave an overview on Mobile IPv6 optimization and multi-homing draft: draft-ng-mobopts-multihoming-02.txt. This draft explores the possible areas of extensions to MIPv6 route optimization in the considerations of multi-homed nodes. The intention is to raise awareness in the research community, leading to a possible extension to RFC 4651 resulting in RFC4651bis. He cited the example of draft-vidya-ip-mobility-multihoming-interactions-01 as an example that discuss some of these issues. The intention of this draft is not to duplicate the effort. Following scenarios were highlighted. MN is Multihomed HA (anchor) is Multihomed CN is Multihomed He gave many examples of IP-mobility-multihoming interactions that include scenarios such as MN is multi-homed, HA is multi-homed, CN is multi-homed etc. MN mutihomed: Multiple HoA Multiple PATH ?– It is up to the mobile Questions and Answers: Rajeev: Which flow to carry on which path? It is a good idea to set up the RR. Percentage of overall signaling, is it useful? Ans: For multiple home addresses, reduce it to one single address Main purpose is to reduce the number of signaling messages. Rajeev: Send one message vs. multiple messages Document the scenario Thiery: MONAMI6 WG which is now MEXT maybe a place to discuss these? Express the need for solution Rajeev: Requested the audience to provide your input People break for Lunch.