2.3.13 Next Steps in IP Mobility (nsiim) Bof

Current Meeting Report

Minutes for the NSIIM BOF at the 56th IETF (San Francisco)

Next steps in IP mobility

Minutes by: Eva Gustafsson 
 Spencer Dawkins (spencer@mcsr-labs.org) with minor edits by Gabriel 
Montenegro (gab@sun.com). 

Tuesday, March 18 at 1300-1400

CHAIRS: Phil Roberts <proberts@megisto.com>
        Basavaraj Patil <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
        Gabriel Montenegro <gab@sun.com>


The Mobile IP working group has defined basic mobility and associated 
specifications for IPv4 and is at the verge of finishing the base 
specification for IPv6.

Mailing list information:
mipcharter-request@sunroof.eng.sun.com (to subscribe)
mipcharter@sunroof.eng.sun.com (to post)

Next Steps in IP Mobility BoF

Raj Patil presented the scope of the BOF:

MIP WG has existed since 1991; time to make some changes

BoF is proposing a charter and opening for discussion - minimal 

Scope of IP mobility in NSIIM:
- movement with respect to an existing and stable 
infrastructure, L3 mobility
- baseline for IP mobility (MIPv4 & MIPv6)
- NSIIM is not: MANET, NEMO, PANA/AAA, L2 mobility

Goals of BOF:
- rethink & focus on IETF efforts on IP mobility
- means prioritization of IP mobility topics, focus on 'E' aspect of IETF, 
separate mobility work for IPv4 & IPv6
- identify what IRTF should do on IP mobility

- create MIP4 WG (mobility in IPv4 networks, operator & deployment 
issues, requirements from other SDOs)
- create MIP6 WG (mobility in IPv6 networks, deployment challenges & 
growing pains)

	MIPv4 currently in deployment phase, 
	advance base protocols & few other ideas to DS, 
	VPN solution for MIPv4, 
	other items of interest: dynamic HA assignment, HA

	optimizations of base protocol, 
	reliability of HAs,
	bootstrapping MIPv6 SAa, 
	alternatives to RR based RO, 
	hierarchical MIPv6, fast HOs, MIB 
	other items of interest: AAA-MIPv6 interaction

	form a research community similar to TCP research community, 
	enable comparison of research results, 
	simulations IRTF group on IP mobility will not study
	revolutionary or radically new architectures for IP mobility

James Kempf: IRTF should be encouraged to look at new 
Vern Paxson: this is what the IRTF group spinning out from this should do, 
not IRTF in general

Next steps:
- discuss charter details on mailing list
- send charters to IESG mid-april
- IRTF work for IP mobility
- target: two WGs at IETF 57


Tim Shepard: Fine idea to split MIP WG. Suggests to call new WGs 
something other than Mobile IP, since there are other ways to achieve 
mobility than MIP, other stories of mobility that work in MIP WG does not 
address (SCTP, HIP...). Maybe too late to change name, but at least in 
chartering define exactly what kind of mobility scenarios you mean.

Raj Patil: Agree that there are other mobility models, but baseline for 
work here is MIPv4 & MIPv6

Gabriel Montenegro: L3 mobility as name?

Tim Shepard: No, there are other examples of L3 mobility (HIP), would make it 
difficult for other solutions with their own niches

Gabriel Montenegro: Point taken, will work on "truth in 

James Kempf: Group should be named MIP specifically because it deals with 
MIP, tied down to ongoing work in MIP WGs. Also, discussion on list about 
splitting scenarios, list is now dominated by base spec discussion. Makes 
more sense on v6 side to have two WGs: (1) base, (2) HMIP, FMIP, 
location privacy... so that people not discussing base protocol have a 
place to discuss their things. Broad group stuff doesn't get done.

Raj Patil: Intent here to determine what things are critical, what people 
are interested in working on, what is useful to be worked on in IETF, find 
out levels of interest for location privacy etc.

James Kempf: Work would be done more quickly, if list not overloaded with 
other stuff

Gabriel Montenegro: Base v6 spec should be shipped pretty soon; list 
traffic around it should decrease

James Kempf: Other stuff around it; people will start discussing it 
again. Another group could focus specifically on other issues

Charlie Perkins: Comment on naming; MIP pretty much is what it says, 
charter to say this is the area we are focusing on, make it very 
specific, truth in advertising important (should spend some time on 
this), fast handover pretty much fits in, would like to see it stay in. If 
later we see work can't be done, we can fix it then; don't need to split 
(Jims proposal) now; focus on deployment in both WGs. Frustration over 
what's been going on in MIPv6 lately, would like the WG to be able to 
focus on whatever is the best technology, focus on what IP should do... 
[Charlie then clarified:  Of all the various reasons for 
frustration, this remark was was specifically about the prospect of 
trying to solve so many _other_ problems within the [mobile-ip] working 

Nick Moore: Mailing list volume problem could be solved (in part) by  
splitting mailing list rather than splitting entire WG (MIP6). Do v6 
optimization in IRTF?

Gabriel Montenegro: No, ongoing work in IETF. IRFT we want to help us 
evaluate and compare different solutions/protocols; something like the TCP 
community does, common set of parameters to evaluate among competing 

Nick Moore: Very important to get v6 base spec out

Hesham Soliman: IRTF comment, agrees that it makes lot of sense (common 
parameters to evaluate), think split suggestion is fine, hard to talk 
about other things than base spec during last months, now mails are 
reducing. AAA interactions; don't think we need to do anything in this 
area. PANA, AAA,... to work on this; like to keep MIPv6 end-to-end as it is 
now and not integrate with AAA

Erik Nordmark: Movement detection as well?

Raj Patil: Part of base spec, will be worked on as part of 
optimization to enhance base spec

Gopal Dommety: Great to split WGs, keep it extremely focused, take top-5 
problems, keep rest in IRTF or something, focus more on operator & 
deployment issues to get faster results

Thomas Narten: Small WGs generally better than large, but split so that not 
too small (isolated work). Find right way, what do we think will happen to 
base spec next year? Would really benefit from being split up in 4-5 
smaller docs, easier to review, easier to manage, should start this soon 
(but maybe wait a while before restarting things all over again)

Raj Patil: Need focus, prioitize with timeline no longer than one year, 
more realistic to get things done

Thomas Narten: Agree on one-year milestone plan

Gabriel Montenegro: Maybe counterproductive to split into too many WGs, we 
want the people in one room

Charlie Perkins: Dissenting opinion on one-year timeline, means IPv6 in 
unrealistic (neighbor discovery, everything in IETF)....

Thomas Narten: Working group milestones should target delivery dates 
within a year, anything beyond that is just not a realistic 
milestone.  Now, in spite of this, the completion of the work may 
actually take longer, and that's probably ok.

Charlie Perkins: Sounds a lot more reasonable. Also recognize 
communities involved, synergies; split out fast HOs into separate WG would 
generate more meetings for the same people to attend. About AAA; AAA WG 
busy & not interested in IPv6, recognize the community who is going to do 
the work...

Thomas Narten: AAA WG has priorities, does not mean they will not do the 
work, will take on new work later on

Charlie Perkins: Right, we need to look at the way things are today, we 
could do the work here and then transfer the work to their working group 
whenever they felt it became relevant to their charter..

James Kempf: MIPv4-v6 interaction is missing. AAA yes, there is some work 
that needs to be done in MIP, protocol solution or set of 
requirements? We should start it and hand it off to WG when they have 
time. Also, need strong chair for IRTF WG (and strongly agrees with it)

Raj Patil: ngtrans, v6ops rather for MIPv4-v6 interaction

James Kempf: But we really need to understand what the issues are; we 
cannot just ignore and hope someone else will take care of it

Raj Patil: Has not seen any significant interest in this...

Nick Moore: Split MIPv6 spec sounds good, but then we need separate 
mailing lists

Raj Patil: Same people reading all these emails

Nick Moore: Yes, but difficult to follow threads. Is for tighter 
charter, but need some room to look at new ideas, ex. different types of 

Raj Patil: Suggest text to discuss on charter list

Hesham Soliman: Contradictions; split into smaller groups but take on work 
that actually should be done in other WGs. About MIPv4-v6 
interaction, there is definitely interest in this, v6ops is not looking at 
mobility at all

Pekka Nikander: See seven bullets for MIP6 and that's quite enough. We 
don't need to solve everything with Mobile IP (just because we have it), 
like to see some space somewhere in IRTF for alternatives

Thomas Narten: AAA WG owns AAA stuff, if there is work needing to be done, 
make problem statement and take it to AAA WG. First define problem, then 
decide where it should be done
Gopal Dommety: Take on hierarchical working system; split into v4 & v6 WGs, 
then let these WGs discuss whether to split further

Kent Leung: Agree, create aliases for specific topics good, MIPv4-v6 
transition & interoperability is important, needs to be addressed both from 
v4 and v6 perspective

Terry Davis: Concerned about route optimization handing off aircrafts from 
one continent to another, how do we do route optimize on a global basis?

Charlie Perkins: There has been interest in AAA-MIPv6 proposal. Took it to 
AAA WG, they asked whether v6 people are interested. The IPv6 WG said yes, 
AAA WG again, said they're too busy. MIPv6 appplication for Diameter 
almost same case as for Diameter-MIPv4, there is interest but not able to 
focus in specific place here

Mary Barnes: SIP split into SIP & SIPPING worked out fine, mailing list 
thing may sound trivial but it's really good

Hesham Soliman: If AAA stuff is to be added to charter could we first 
define the problem? Also, six years ago, we decided Mobile IP was 
working so we use that. This was not done ad hoc, there was work that took us 
to where we are today

Pekka Nikander: Problem 6 years back was different problem than we are 
facing now

Will Ivancic (NASA Glenn): Have been deploying Mobile IP. AAA is next 
thing, interesting...

Rajeev Koodli: Fast HOs, MN is in charge, common denominator with base 
MIPv6. Investigate alternatives to route opt? Yes, but in other 

Gabriel Montenegro: Take to IRTF separation of locator & identifier (for 
example), what we want to do right now... We see consensus for dividing 
into MIP4 & MIP6. Next step may be to discuss further division of MIP6.