IETF WG: Network-Based Mobility Extensions (netext) Minutes from the WG meeting held at IETF78, Maastricht, Netherlands WEDNESDAY, July 28, 2010 (1300-1530 hours) Chairs: Basavaraj Patil, Rajeev Koodli Minutes are courtesy of: 1. Ashutosh Dutta 2. Juan Carlos Zuniga (juancarlos dot zuniga at interdigital dot com) -------------------------------------------------------- 1. Logistics (Bluesheets, minutes takers, jabber, agenda bashing) 5 mins 2. WG status update Chairs 5 Mins Basavaraj went over the agenda. There were no objections or changes requested to the agenda. - WGLC on LMA-redirect; WGLC expiring – need for more input - I-D: draft-ietf-netext-redirect-03 – problem statement –Issue the last call pretty soon - Bulk re-registration (draft-ietf-bulk-re-registration): need more reviews and input - I-D: draft-ietf-netxt-radius-pmip6 - new WG ID taken from netlmm WG. Folks were invited to provide input on this draft - Logical interface draft, flow mobility, localized routing support drafts are available to be adopted as working group document and need discussion Few new proposals are available that would be discussed as well at the end. Comment: From a logistics point, focus on WG related items only. Time permitting we will do other stuff 3. Runtime LMA selection I-D update Jouni Korhonen 5 mins I-D: draft-ietf-netext-redirect-03 Status; Review from Qin Wu, took care of the comments from last IETF. Modified two flags. Continued the clarifications WGLC started 7th July and ends 27th July WGLC completed If we can take any more review Jouni: There are only a couple of comments that need to be addressed and then its done Raj: Encourage people to review it before the IESG submission Jonne Soininen : Found some editorial comments but nothing serious technical comments 4. Bulk re-reg I-D update and next steps Fuad Junior 5 Mins I-D: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-01 Send for WGLC after getting feedbackXiansong Cui – MNID must be included in the PBU and PBACK, Does it need to update RFC 5213.MNID is not added in the bulk registration Sri: RFC 5213 should not be affected This feature is not part of RFC5213 and it would be treated as a new option. 5. Logical Interface Support for multi-mode IP Hosts Telemaco Melia 20 Mins I-D: draft-melia-netext-logical-interface-support-01.txt Telemaco presented the draft. This ID is based on extension/merger of last two drafts on this topic; goal is to advance it as WG draft. There were questions about logical interface properties. Mapping between interface and sub-interface were discussed. It was made clear that the dynamic mapping is not visible to the application. It described a few properties. This draft provides support for both inter-technology handover and flow-mobility support. Marco: Does it use the MAC address. It resolves according to Hui: Has the flow mobility and multi-interface been covered. How it is different from standard RFC 5213? Is there any change being made to RFC? Sri: 5213 does support multi-interface mobility. Configuration is one interface. From application perspective there is one virtual interface that is considered. Carlos: Wifi and 3G, there is only one interface for the application Hui: Recommend to look into what is being discussed in MIF mailing list Rajeev: primary applicability is only for flow mobility and multi-interface and pass on those to mif working group Julien: Do not need to remove the details but explain. This is not standardizing the virtual interface. There is a standardized way of defining mif. Raj: It is still in discussion stage HUI- Two overlapping documents? Rajeev: Anything beyond that we will move to other WG Julien: We need more details, why there are two different models P2 – Logical interface has the path awareness Rajeev: What needs to be there to start with 00 version Julien: Why, how Neighbor Discovery works This virtual interface is specific to PMIPv6. Logical interface is Gedan: Agree with logical interface definition Rajeev: How something gets triggered is a policy manager’s decision Gedan: When to trigger the virtual interface Rajeev: Carlos: There are work in MIF and then here Parvez: Does it have any relevance, for example CMIP does it use? External application is near zero. Would you like to put it in the device driver? Rajeev: Whole point is not to affect the behavior on the host Julien’s comments – It is pre-mature to include this document as the working group document. Consensus call on adopting this I-D as WG document. Chairs: Take this version as the baseline working group document Whether it is heading in the right direction 17 (Yes) vs. 3 (No) Whether this version can be adopted as a base-line – 17 (Yes) vs. 3 (No) The I-D will be published as WG document before the next IETF 6. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility Carlos Bernardos 20 Mins I-D: draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-00 Avi: how do you move it back? Carlos: you explicit signal or wait to expiration Gaetan: How do you guarantee the MN will reply fine? Tele: Logical interface Gaetan: so in both cases you are sharing the prefixes in all interfaces Rajeev: today 5213 assigns unique prefixes per interface, so we need changes Yokota: What will the MN do when the FMI/FMA is happening? Rajeev: MN accepts packets at all times on both interfaces Tran Minh Trung: In your slide you are using MAC address Carlos: it could be same or different Raj: clarification on next revision TMT: after IP Flow mobility a prefix will be shared between different interfaces Carlos: ??? Julien: signaling only needed when new interface is brought up and you want to support ip flow mobility. Why two scenarios? Rajeev: if people provide details and define protocols is a good thing. Define two scenarios is a good thing. If you want to have this same prefix on two interfaces you need extensions Julien: you don’t describe what is a session and why it is needed. How do I charge users when they are moved? Rajeev: we have to start somewhere and this is responding and providing good baseline Rajeev: I charge base on the /64, not on the MAG Julien: I still want to know why I need it Alex: There will be questions on the mailing list Phil (BT): Which milestone is this responding to? Raj: Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility Rajeev: Carlos, please incorporate comments and produce new version Chairs took a vote to find out whether this base document can be used as a WG document. How many people think it can be accepted as working group baseline document – 9 (Yes) How many people think it is not ready for working group document -6 (no) Raj asked to take it to mailing list discussion Carlos: Simple approach to provide flow mobility. Triggers are out of scope 7. Localized routing solution I-D Suresh K. 20 Mins I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 Multiple individual LR drafts are merged to produce a single draft. There are some open issues. The draft got some feedback from Marco, Paulo and Qin Wu in the mailing list. There is no inter-LMA communication between LMAs, so that specific scenario was left out. Lifetime of binding MAG address has been added. 14 agreed to adopt this document as WG document, there is no objection Following are the proposals for WG consideration: Each speaker got only a few minutes to talk because of lack of time. They were advised to limit the presentation time. 1. Service Flow Identifier in Proxy Mobile IPv6 Hui Min 5 Mins I-D: draft-hui-netext-service-flow-identifier-03 Flow ID to support flow mobility. We will discuss this in the mailing list. Cannot differentiate flows on the same tunnel. Discuss in the mailing list 2. Flow tracking procedure for PMIPv6 Tran Trung 5 Mins I-D: draft-trung-netext-flow-tracking-01 Related to flow mobility. Why do we need a link layer? 3. Hybrid HNP for multi-homing in PMIPv6 Yong-Geun Hong 5 Mins I-D: draft-hong-netext-hybrid-hnp-02 Triggers are out of scope. 4. Scenarios of the usage of multiple HNPs on a logical interface Yong Geun Hong 5 Mins I-D: draft-hong-netext-scenario-logical-interface-01 Y-G. Hong Consider other possible scenarios, LMA slide, overload slide 5. Address-option based multi-interface supporting in PMIPv6 Zhiwei Yan 5 Mins I-D: draft-zhang-netext-ao-mulif-00.txt The draft was briefly discussed and the authors were advised to discuss it in the mailing list. 6. IKEv2/IPSEC chaining with PMIPv6, on the MAG Sri Gundavelli 5 Mins The problem statement presented seems to be relevant in the context of PMIP6 deployments. Draft-zhang-netext-ao-mulif-00.txt Primary HoA IFP – Interface Priority In summary 3 WG documents are moving forward and two WG last calls. Chairs requested the audience to give feedback in the mailing list. Due to lack of time, the additional drafts could not be presented properly.