Re: Laugh Test: Next Steps in Mobility BOF [nsiim] Request

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

Thomas,

Below, a few comments for fine tuning. Let me preface my comments by saying I
think this BOF is an excellent idea and I fully support it. Pekka Nikander and I
submitted a draft to MIP related to this topic that might be appropriate for
consideration by the BOF. I'll bring it up on the mipcharter list when it is set
up.

            jak

> Note: the idea behind the BOF is to get broader discussion and have
> people participate who normally would probably not bother if this was
> just part of a normal MIP WG session.
>
> Thomas
>
> Next Steps in IP Mobility BOF (nsiim)
>
> 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.
>
> It is now a good time to look at the activities of the working group
> and how to better structure future efforts.  Upon doing so, it is
> evident that beyond their superficial resemblance, mobility for IPv4
> and IPv6 differ considerably.  They are very different with respect to
> their underlying technologies,

I disagree with this as a blanket statement. On a global level, the basic
architectural mechanism for handling global routing changes hasn't changed
because it is dictated by the Internet routing architecture, and that hasn't
fundamentally changed between IPv4 and IPv6. The global mechanism is a routing
proxy to handle the global node identifier to routing identifier mapping. MIPv6
has filled in some optimizations, like route optimization (but there was even an
(insecure) prototype for that in MIPv4), and done a much better job at
specifying security and separating out AAA from the basic mobility mechanism,
but the basic design hasn't really changed on a global level.

What has changed, and rather drastically I think, is how MIPv6 supports local
link configuration and change, with the demise of the Foreign Agent. I think it
is very important to keep the distinction in mind, and, in fact, lack of
attention to this distinction has resulted in some proposals for inappropriately
mixing the global and local signaling for MIPv6 extensions, IMHO. The local part
is the most underspecified in the current design.

>deployment issues and levels of
> maturity.  MIPv4 has been a proposed standard for several years, has
> been adopted by other standard development organizations and has been
> deployed commercially.  The basic specifications for MIPv6, on the
> other hand, are just now being finalized.  Whereas for MIPv4 the more
> pressing issues at this moment are to further ease its deployment, for
> MIPv6 the more urgent work is still on finalizing protocol details and
> mechanisms of a more basic nature.

I agree with this statement very strongly.

>This leads to a two-pronged approach
> in which the basic idea is to divide the current working group into two
> new ones: one concentrating on IPv4 mobility and the other on IPv6
> mobility.
>

I'm not so sure I would make the cut in this way. I agree on the need to
separate out IPv4, but I think a finer granularity cut in IPv6 might facilitate
more modularity in the design. The draft I mentioned above makes one proposal
for such a finer cut, there are others. An advantage of separating out into
smaller, more focussed WGs aligned along the natural architectural bounderies in
MIPv6 is a possible potential for achieving closure more quickly. Mitigating
against this is the more experimental nature of some of the technologies, which
should require proof of concept and measurements to verify validity before being
standardized, and that takes longer.

> This purpose of this BOF is to discuss this proposal and to seek IETF
> input on how each of the resultant working groups should be chartered.
>
> Another issue to be discussed is to figure out how to best determine
> when items should be adopted by the working group(s). As an example,
> when items are more of a research nature, it may be best not to
> pursue them in the IETF as other organizations may be better suited
> for this. Other potential criteria to apply are the existence
> of independent implementations and/or deployment plans as  a measure
> of interest in a given proposal.
>

This is an excellent topic but I'm not sure whether this WG is the right place
for this discussion, as it is a topic that is applicable to any item that comes
before IETF. The problem has been somewhat more severe in MIP, but I can't
really see any possibility for resolution at this BOF and so it sets off my
rathole detector. Moving this discussion to the Problem Statement WG might be a
better bet.

> The chairs also seek feedback on how best to interface with other
> working groups, both within the IETF (e.g., to tackle ND optimizations
> with IPv6) and elsewhere (e.g., to coordinate work on movement detection
> with the IEEE).
>
> Chairs:
>      Phil Roberts <proberts@megisto.com>
>      Basavaraj Patil <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
>      Gabriel Montenegro <gab@sun.com>
>

Actually, I would suggest getting someone other than the MIP chairs to do this.
Not that I have any problem with their performance as MIP chairs (they are all
good people and have done an excellent job), but I think it might be useful to
have someone else as BOF chair to avoid any perception of a vested interest in
the outcome. Considering the wide breath that the topic of IPv6 mobility covers,
I think it might even be appropriate to have an AD be the BOF chair. Perhaps
Erik Nordmark?

> Agenda (1 hour slot):
>      Reasons to recharter, general directions (chairs) - 10 min
>      MIPv4 Charter proposal (chairs)
>      MIPv6 Charter proposal (chairs)
>      Open Discussion - 40 min
>      Next Steps (AD's and chairs) - 10 min
>

            jak