2.3.18 MIPv6 Signaling and Handoff Optimization (mipshop) Bof

Current Meeting Report

Minutes for the MIPv6 Signaling and Handoff Optimization BOF (mipshop)

Minutes taken by: Eva Gustaffson, Spencer Dawkins, Koojana 
Kuladinithi with some edits by Gabriel Montenegro

Wednesday, July 16 at 0900-1130

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

0. Executive Summary:

Initially, the discussion centered around the charter items. Folks 
suggested other potential items like smoothing techniques (e.g., 
bicasting) and  network-controlled handoffs. However, initial focus will be 
on finalizing HMIPv6 and FMIPv6 specs for experimental status. 
Nevertheless, it is important to keep an eye on other groups (e.g. 
seamoby, the irtf mobility work). So further work remains possible (but may 
require rechartering).

Greg Daley gave us an overview of the DNA (detecting network 
attachment) BoF scheduled for Friday, with an emphasis on its 
relationship with MIPSHOP. This refers to items like movement 
detection and fast address configuration on the new link. Further 
details need to be worked out, but this was a good heads up.

Rajeev Koodli presented the lastest changes to the FMIPv6 draft. In 
particular, this concerns the new mechanism of a fast NA (FNA) 
encapsulating an FBU. Some suggestions that this needs airing within the 
IPv6 WG, but it was also mentioned that this type of mechanism is ok for an 
experimental draft.

Hesham reviewed the latest changes to HMIPv6, in particular, the on-link 
care-of address test so the MAP can (optionally) perform a return 
routability test of the MN's LCoA. He also went through the LMM 
requirements draft to verify that HMIPv6 satisfied it. Some 
requirements are unclear (e.g., "not introducing a single point of 
failure" -- which the MAP, like a HA, is). This may require revising LMM 

We then had 3 implementation reports.

Rajeev Koodli talked about an experimental FMIPv6 testbed in which they are 
measuring packet loss rates of voice traffic during fast handoffs, 
comparing with amount of buffering.

Jim Kempf reported on some simulations of up to 100k users, and Greg Daley 
reported on the Monash HMIPv6 implementation.

Next steps for the BoF/WG is to send the LMM Requirements draft to IESG for 
informational, and target Oct for WG last calls on both HMIPv6 and 

Status of WG I-Ds (MIPSHOP related)
         All are work in progress


1.      Charter discussion 15

MIPSHOP BoF charter discussion HMIPv6, FMIPv6; use these as basis for 
experimental protocols, also refine LLM requirements, follow and work with 
other relevant efforts ex IRTF group on mobility

Hesham Soliman: security for FMIP?

Gabriel Montenegro: yes, it was there

Hesham Soliman: got impression we would go for experimental without look at 

Gabriel Montenegro: yes, we go for experimental but well look at 
security too

Alper Yegin: separate draft?

Gabriel Montenegro: possibly

Karim El-Malki: Will smoothing techniques be part of the charter?

Gab: open for discussion here, but initial plan is existing drafts.

James: we have three drafts. We should finish these. If we have more 
drafts, bring up the issue in the WG, dont decide this now.

Gwendowoo?: would like to see network-controlled handoff included. Not just 
layer-two attachement.

Charlie: Need to tie HMIP, and maybe more, to SEAMOBY.

Raj: lots of other drafts. Not discouraging them, focused on these three for 

Next steps:
Sep 03: LMM requirements to IESG
Oct 03: WG last call on FMIPv6
Oct 03: WG last call on HMIP
Nov 03: discuss last call comments at IETF 58

2.      DNA interaction 10 min
                 Greg Daley
                 no draft

Running a BoF on Friday this week on Detecting Network Attachment.

MIPv6 optimizations: movement prediction (FMIPv6), movement detection 
(MDOpt, FastRA, FRD...), address configuration (OptiDAD, aDAD...), 
location signaling (HMIPv6)

Four applicable areas  FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 are in MIPSHOP, other two arent why 

Rajeev: Taxonomy is good but not perfect... Overall solution to DAD opt may 
be good solution to look at for DNA

Charlie: DAD isnt really required, we just dont know how to avoid it for 
lots of links. Movement prediction isnt that close to fast handoff.

Greg: youre probably right, I'm over-simplifying here. If you dont have any 
information about the network youre going to, movement detection does 

DNA BoF is about either quickly doing configuration or figuring out that we 
dont have to do configuration.

Rajeev: why are you restricting md to handovers? We already have a 
handover solution in MIPSHOP. Greg: this presentation is about 
handovers, the BoF wont be. We want to include unmodified routers in DNA, 

Could receive router advertisement quickly, or base movement detection on 
simple layer two triggers.

Jitter: its not clear how a mobile node would make sure its router is 
still there. Greg: no interest expressed in MIPSHOP want to check this in 
larger context.

Is Duplicate Address Detection optimization worthwhile? Where should it 
live? [note: output of DNA bof seems to indicate that DAD 
optimization will be homed in an upcoming DNA WG]

3.      FMIPv6 update 15 Rajeev Koodli 

Have had feedback on three-party handover (do two-party first!) and 
L2-optimized handover. Each of these may make sense as separate draft.

Two scenarios on why MN might need to do Fast Binding Update. 
FBack_Count is zero in both scenarios.

Send FBU and FNA (requesting Reachable transition at new access 

Hesham: Reachable is supposed to mean you've tested bidirectional 

Rajeev Koodli: good point, you dont have bi-directional 
reachability confirmation at this point, ... we could set it to stale and go 
from there, maybe? Or router may already know, so it COULD be 

Hesham Soliman: its not a downside that router will do this in 
parallel, we could optimize neighbor discovery but we should discuss this in 
MIP6 WG. IPv6 spec says specifically not to set reachable based on 
layer-two information.

Rajeev Koodli: yes, ...

James Kempf  2461 predates widespread availability of wireless. DNA needs to 
fix it. No problem with experimental draft.

...Cont presentation:
 NAR could verify NCoA is conflict-free while creating new forwarding 
... FBU transmission from new link

FNA should be changed to Destination Option.

Hesham Soliman: thought you wanted to have double IP packet 

Rajeev koodli: base IPv6 packets, .... two IP packets

Have also received feedback on HI and HAck, necessary to avoid ND, but 
requires buffering of incoming packets

4.      hmip [and fmip?] vs lmmrequirements  10 min
                 Hesham Soliman

No clear reason to distinguish between MAP and HA, but optional LCoA test 
(OCoT) was added just in case MAP turns out to have stronger security 
requirements. All messages authenticated with ESP/AH.

Lots of LMM requirements, and some are unclear. Only requirement not 
satisfied by LMM is avoid introducing single point of failure in the 
network. MAP is single point of failure, just like HA.

James Kempf: change requirements to avoid introducing additional points of 

Hesham Soliman: yes...

5.      Implementation reports: 20 min

Fast handovers implementation experience (Rajeev Koodli) 
Experimental testbed, linux MN, 802.11b, free-BSD derived router

Experimental Fast Handoff testbed using 20-ms 24-byte talk spurts. Have to 
buffer or expect to lose about 15 packets during handoff. No packets lost 
unless FPU is lost. With 500-ms duration, lose at least five packets about a 
third of the time.

Heshom: is this a simulation?

Rajeev: No, its a testbed

Hesham: Do you know how often FPU is lost

Rajeev: It's traffic dependent

For existing sessions, theres no ramp-up. You have to continue stream 
without heads-up signaling.

Pete McCann: How much delay is introduced by this buffer? Sufficient 
buffering is indistinguishable for voice applications. We need to fix 
handover to use these networks for voice.

Gopal: Im shocked by your loss. Sometimes youre losing all the packets?

Rajeev: router buffering removes constant inter-packet arrival.

Alister: voice has a big tradeoff between buffering and delay. This is the 
same tradeoff we were making on packet radio in the 1980s.

Rajeev: definitely traffic-dependent.

Scalability of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6 (James Kempf)

Piecewise simulation procedure, 100K users simulated Conclusion: FMIP 
should be simplified to reduce amount of over the air signaling 
associated with IP handover

Hesham Soliman: with HMIP you assume no anticipation?

James Kempf: results combination of anticipated and not anticipated

Monash HMIPv6 implementation report (Greg Daley)

(No questions, ran out of 


MIPSHOP and Detecting Network Attachment (DNA)
HMIPv6 (updates and requirements)
Fast Handovers: Implementation Experience
Fast Mobile IPv6 Handovers: Update
Monash HMIPv6 Implementation Report
Scalability of FMIPv6 and HMIPv6