Mobility for IPv4 WG WEDNESDAY, March 21, 2007 1510-1610 Afternoon Session II Roma/Vienna/Madrid CHAIRS: Henrik Levkowetz Pete McCann 1. Preliminaries Chairs Henrik: Any comments on the agenda? No. 2. Document Status Chairs WG Documents: draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4 Active - Needs review ! In few months issue a last call draft-ietf-mip4-fmipv4 Active - Waiting for shepherd writeup We had few comments to manage draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext Active - Last Call: 2006-09-05 - Revised draft submitted 2007-02-26 - Need to verify that this document resolves all issues raised. draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notification-message Active=09 - New working group draft, please review and comment draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base Active=09 - New working group draft, please review and comment Henrik: 2 additional NEMO documents, but they did not make the DL before the IETF. They will be WG documents. draft-ietf-mip4-radius-requirements Active - Needs review!!! Peter: Will go outside the WG to find reviewers. draft-ietf-mip4-rfc2006bis Active - Draft updated and ready for last call (?) Peter: Will issue a Last call soon draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis Active - Draft updated and ready for submission after addressing recent comments on the list. (Draft will be converted to xml format) Peter: One update since last IETF. One comment from Kent, need to address it Henrik: The editor had problem with the his environment. Will convert it from latex to xml Vijay volunteer to do it. draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution Expired - Waiting for shepherd writeup - Will soon be updated and submitted to the IESG IESG Processing: draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity - waiting for draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution RFC-Editor's Queue: draft-ietf-mip4-message-string-ext - Approved since IETF-67 draft-ietf-mip4-reg-tunnel - Approved since IETF-67 draft-ietf-mobileip-lowlatency-handoffs-v4 - was waiting on reg-tunnel 3. NAI-based Home Address Assignment draft-paulkandasamy-mobileip-nai-based-home-addres Kent As part of our charter, we have an action to revise the MIPv4 NAI RFC (2794) to reflect implementation experience. This draft is a proposal for a revision, and a candidate for adoption as a workgroup draft addressing this action item. Kent asks for feedback from MIP implementers Call for consensus to adopt it as a WG document? => No one opposed. Henrik: do you want to take this as a WG item? Only yes. 4. Updates to drafts for NEMO extension to MIPv4 draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-00 (draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-00, draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa-00) Alex These drafts have recently been adopted as WG drafts. (The two last ones were submitted too late and will be available after the IETF). An update on the base draft status will be given. Overview: - Only Registration Req/Rep are extended - Prefix table - Request IANA numbers Received several comments from last IETF, not all of them straight forward - FA CoA mode not explained clearly Agreement to keep the FA optimization out of the document. That text will be incorporated into the FA optimization for NEMOv4 document. => ok on that - Routing protocol over MR-HA tunnel too briefly Section on using a routing protocol within NEMO will be added => Vijay will write the section - terminology: MNP "owned" or "served" - Other "easy" issues that have been fixed Based on reviews, title was changed to IPv4 Network Mobility (NEMO) Protocol. Henrik would like to see that it reflects that it is an extension to MIP4 - Henrik: not agree with the title. Come back to suggest something different Henrik to propose something on the list. Alex: Agree that this is not a new protocol, but only extension George: clarification on "entri"es" became entry. Was about multihoming In this draft, we only consider one HoA - one CoA Based on review, it was clarified that only one HoA and CoA is updated (other than the MNP). Sri agrees that it should be that way. Multiple CoAs are not considered for the base document. Sri?: you should not consider MCoA George: Don't you consider multiple HAs Alex: Yes, we do, but with several HoAs only. One of the reviews suggested describing the MR using DHCP to acquire an IP address and MNP - Alex prefers to keep that out of the document. Alex: please comment 5. A MIB for MIPv4 UDP Tunnelling (i.e., NAT Traversal) draft-sjostrand-mip4-udptunnel-mib Henrik This document defines a MIB for managing the Mobile Node, Foreign Agent and Home Agent when Mobile IP Traversal of Network Address Translation (NAT) Devices are used. The proposal is not to mix this in the MIP MIB. Call for WG approval as a WG document? Sri: Is it the plan to come with a new MIB for each new feature? Henrik: This was asked from MIB implementers experts. And this is not the plan to create a new MIB for each new additional feature. Kent: I support this as WG item. RFC3519 is well deployed. Some agreed. Nobody was opposed. 6. Service Selection for Mobile IPv4 draft-korhonen-mip4-service-00.txt Jouni This document describes a Service Selection Extension for Mobile IPv4 that is intended to assist home agents to make specific service selections for the mobility service subscription during the registration procedure. Hesham: If NAI is used, the authentication can be tied, since that is what the HA uses to look up the key. If you use a generic token, you then need the HA to be able to update that token. You will need to consider a few more things here. Jouni: When HA receives RRQ, it needs to verify against some database that has the mapping of the NAI to these tokens. Henrik: Content being signed is one approach; another approach is to allow the first registration to be able to carry this information - we can come up with other approaches. The main point is that the user/mobile must not be able to hack it. Hesham: Why do you need the MN to send it? Can be retrieved from AAA, based on identity from authentication (at least in IPv6) Simon: The dynamic HoA allocation is done by the same HA, right ? Jouni: Yes Kent: This might be good to allow several methods, it's flexible. Can be done at the backend; doesn't need to be done by the MN; this is done in the enterprise networks today Vidya: Look at issues with using encrypted tokens/tickets; Vidya to send a pointer to some material. Vijay: The MN can subscribe to a number of services, but services must be independent. The MN just says I want this at this time, and the HA and AAA just has to verify it. Henrik: Agree, but the slide does not say that. The draft says that. Hesham: You are not allowing to simultaneous use 2 services. Let say 2 tokens. How to you differentiate? You need to have 2 HoAs. Jouni: Yes. Want first the feedback of what the people think. Henrik: Need to read drafts and provide feedback. It would be good if everyone can review as well. We need to re-charter to take this one, but we need to finish our tasks first. Jari agrees. George: DSMIPv4: plan to have a new version of the draft before the next meeting, intend to be the last. Please read it before and speak up now. (the idea is to go for a last call before the next meeting) Charlie: did you talk about RFC3344bis ? Henrik: We have a volonteer to convert it to xml. We would like to send it for publication.