Slides MCoA status and remaining issues Failover for Multiple Mobile Routers in a NEMO Interface selection for a multihomed mobile network Introduction and WG document status Minutes Agenda for monami6 meeting, IETF67 San Diego, USA Friday, November 10 Chairs: Thierry Ernst, Nicolas Montavont 1. Welcome, agenda bashing, WG documents status................... 20 minutes The chairs announced the presence of a Wiki for the working group, at http://www.nautilus6.org/ietf/monami6/ Nicolas went over the agenda, asked for comments on it, there were none. Nicolas then went over the state of the WG documents. For details, see slides (http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/monami6-3.pdf). Regarding the WG drafts: draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-01 draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-01 WG last call will be held on the multihoming motivation draft within a couple of weeks, after that attention will be on the MIPv6 analysis. Ryuji presented the updates done to draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa, in the -01 version, see slides (http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/monami6-0.pdf). There were also comments on this version from the AD (Jari) and Ryuji walked through these. Some issues had clear proposed solutions, but others are unresolved and Ryuji will initiate discussion on the list. Comments from Keigo were also covered, in particular the question of how to treat certain issues with a multiaccess node returning home. More discussion on the mailing list may be needed on this. Keigo presented a comparison table between two of the proposed solutions. Slides: (??) Discussion: Ryuji: Won't change the draft before clear resolution; keeping current approach. Vijay: keep it simple Chan-Wah: Turning off all but one interface simple. Keeping more interfaces active requires something more. Keigo's solution may seem more complicated on the surface, but there are hidden complications with the alternative. Chairs: More discussion on the list, please. [09:32] 2. Aviation and aerospace multihoming issues ...................... 15 minutes Terry Davis and William Ivancic Same presentation as in Nemo. Interesting. Slides: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/nemo-3.ppt TJ: Is there any adaptability (elasticity) in the materials running over these links? Can the traffic adapt to the bandwidth available? Terry: To some degree in the coming generation, but not a lot now. Henrik: Could the policies and selections at the HA change withouth being triggered by a BU; i.e., caused by changes not associated with the Mobile Node? William: Can't think of such a situation, probably not. Jari: Regarding the automated access to network (MR docking to different ISPs) - you need to define what you want, so we can work out if the existing AAA mechanisms can be used or not. Terry: There are so many different ISP mechanisms at the different airports around the world that it feels (now) that it's really hard to find commonality and a way to automatically connect to them all... Thierry: Do you have only one MR in the aircraft? William: We'd like only one MR doing routing for multiple domains (multiple NEMOs) with the ability to multiplex at layer 3 instead of at layer 2. Don't want multiple routers trying to multiplex over L2... Thierry: You also need redundancy, no? May need 2 routers both doing L3 multiplexing? William: Right Terry: Yes, but it's also always hard to get multiple systems onto a plane because of weight considerations. [10:02] 3. Flow binding in Mobile IPv6 ................................... 15 minutes draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03 Hesham Soliman Slides: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/monami6-4.pdf James: Looks similar to .21 transport, and doesn't make sense to define two different transports to such similar uses. Also is exasberates the trend of using the MH as a transport protocol. Henrik: There is also another proposal on the table, and we should consider both as candidates for WG adoption. (Longer discussion between Henrik and Hesham about the optimal choice of how and when to transfer filters, making them as small as possible or taking them out of the critical handover time communications alltogether (and more)) Jari: There is sense in what you're proposing, but I've heard enough to see that we need to consider the needs also of other groups. Will need to check in with some other people regarding this. We will probably need to have a public discussion involving other parties, maybe on the int-area list. Hesham: I'm not trying to exclude the generic solution, proposing to permit both. [10:30] 4. Filter rules .................................................. 15 minutes draft-larsson-monami6-filter-rules-01.txt draft-kauppinen-monami6-binding-filter-rule-00.txt Heikki Mahkonen (presented the filter transfer part (first draft)) Slides: (??) Carsten: Sending PF specs seems a good idea, but I see that the draft references the OpenBSD FAQ - is there a stable reference for the PF language? And how fast does it change? We need a stable reference in order to achieve interoperability. Henrik: Good point. There is a definition, and it should be referenced. Don't know the current change rate, have to find out that. Carsten: We may also need to consider change control for the filter language. James: Same comment as on Hesham's draft -- please get together with the people looking at transport of 802.21 information services elements. Tero Kauppinen presented the filter binding draft (second draft) [10:45] 5. Interface selection for a multihomed mobile network............. 5 minutes draft-park-mis-01.txt Park Chulhyun Slides: (??) [10:55] 6. Failover for Multiple Mobile Routers in a Mobile Network ....... 5 minutes draft-ryu-nemo-mr-failover-02.txt Seungjae Lee Slides: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/monami6-1.ppt [10:58] Thierry thanked the participants and wished them a good trip home.