headers
Jari Arkko | 5 Mar 2007 13:04

intarea agenda for the Prague meeting

Hi all,

This time we will use the intarea meeting to talk about
the routing and addressing topic and whether some
form of identifier-locator split or multilevel locator
design would help as a long-term solution.

The preliminary agenda is at

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/agenda/intarea.txt

Note that other meetings during the IETF week will also
touch on the routing and addressing topic. In particular,
we will have a brief status report in the Wednesday
plenary, and the routing area meeting focuses on what
we could do with BGP to address some aspects of
the problem in the short term.

Comments welcome.

Jari & Mark
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Paul Hoffman | 9 Mar 2007 00:22

Invitation to the IFARE BoF

Greetings. There will be a BoF at Prague that might be of interest to 
you. IFARE (IPsec FAilover and REdundancy) will be meeting Wednesday 
morning to discuss our charter and, if that goes well, requirements 
for a protocol to meet the goals in the charter.

The agenda and current proposed charter are at 
<http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/agenda/ifare.txt>. If you are 
interested, please join the mailing list (see 
<http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec-failover/>) and go through the 
reasonably short list archive 
(<http://www.vpnc.org/ietf-ipsec-failover/mail-archive/>). It would 
be grand if everyone at the BoF had read the charter and the proposed 
requirements doc 
(<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vidya-ipsec-failover-ps-01.txt>).

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Narayanan, Vidya | 15 Mar 2007 09:36

IP Mobility Threat Analysis and Security Requirements - Request for Review and Comments

All,

In an effort to document a common understanding of the threat model and
security requirements for IP mobility protocols, we have written
draft-vidya-ip-mobility-threats-00 and
draft-vidya-ip-mobility-sec-reqs-00. Reviews and comments are greatly
appreciated.  

Regards,
Vidya
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Narayanan, Vidya | 15 Mar 2007 09:40

draft-vidya-ip-mobility-multihoming-interactions-00 - Request for review and comments

All,
We have submitted a draft describing the interactions and architectural
usage models involving various IP mobility and multihoming protocols
that have/are being specified here at the IETF. We'd appreciate review
and comments from the community. 

Thanks,
Vidya
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
RYUJI WAKIKAWA | 15 Mar 2007 19:33
Picon

Re: draft-vidya-ip-mobility-multihoming-interactions-00 - Request for review and comments

Hi Vidya,

Thanks for this draft. It must be hard work to puzzle out this
complicated problem:)

I have a few comments.

- There are well summarized protocol descriptions in section4.1. I
   wonder if you can list the mobility and multihoming
   characteristics of each protocol maybe with some tables.

   For example, MIP6 provides permanent addresses (i.e. HoA)
   reachability, but not always guarantee the path reachability like
   SHIM6 does.  An IPv6 node may not be aware of unreachability of a MN
   unless it explicitly exchanges a binding with the MN (RO).

   The comparison of protocols is useful to see the common functions.
   In future, some of the functions may be taken by each protocol and  
can be
   standardized as a universal spec. for all the protocols.
   The policy exchange issue raised by Jari on this ML is just one  
example.
   Alternatively, if two protocols do a same operation (ex. keep- 
alive beacon),
   one of protocol can skip the operation as an optimization.

- MIP has special meaning to the "home" network. The consideration of
   returning home is somehow missing in this document.
   For example, MN has two interfaces attached to home network and
   foreign network simultaneously. This configuration has been
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jari Arkko | 16 Mar 2007 13:49

reorganization of Mobile IPv6 related working groups

Hi all,

We are planning to reorganize the MIP6, MONAMI6, and NEMO
working groups in the Internet Area. The idea is to merge
these three groups, all of which work around the Mobile IPv6
protocol and its extensions. The merge will not happen
immediately, but around the IETF69 time frame when
MIP6 has completed a few more of its work items, MONAMI6
has submitted its main specification, and NEMO has gotten
on its way with its newly chartered work. The resulting
working group will be bigger, but still committed to
completing work on all three aspects, i.e., base features,
support for multiple care-of addresses, and network
mobility. The chartered work items or their planned
delivery dates will not be changed because of this.

The reasons why we are making this change include

- Putting most of work around Mobile IPv6 and its extensions
  into one place, reducing the need to coordinate, and
  making it easier for new people and outsiders to see
  where this work is happening.

- The bigger group makes it easier to find reviewers,
  and have a complete picture of how the protocol is
  being extended.

- Provide a better ability to prioritize work and maybe
  add some competition for resources.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Alexandru Petrescu | 16 Mar 2007 16:40
Picon

Re: IP Mobility Threat Analysis and Security Requirements

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> All,
> 
> In an effort to document a common understanding of the threat model and
> security requirements for IP mobility protocols, we have written
> draft-vidya-ip-mobility-threats-00 and
> draft-vidya-ip-mobility-sec-reqs-00. Reviews and comments are greatly
> appreciated.

Thanks... just  one quick comment, review to come in later (if needed). 
  Not sure whether it should be said or not, or now or later, etc.

During MIP6 RO design one Mobile IPv6 Threat document was developped, 
which didn't last longer than a few meetings, but somehow helped the 
design of RO with RR.  And then there's at least one document with 
"rationale for MIP6 RO RR design".

Then there are various threat analysis documents in various 
mobility-related WGs.

Would those be referenced.  Because sec-reqs has no references and 
mobility-threats lists no security document (other than mobike).

Or is the intention of the doc to take a completely fresh look on 
mobility and security and then put up some generic requirements helping 
any new mobility-related protocol design... not sure...

Or is the intention to recommend mobility-security people to just use 
more of IPsec...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jean-Michel Combes | 16 Mar 2007 17:49
Picon

Re: [Monami6] reorganization of Mobile IPv6 related working groups

Hi,

Will there be a slot during the INT Area session in Prague about this?

Best regards.

JMC.

2007/3/16, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko <at> piuha.net>:
> Hi all,
>
> We are planning to reorganize the MIP6, MONAMI6, and NEMO
> working groups in the Internet Area. The idea is to merge
> these three groups, all of which work around the Mobile IPv6
> protocol and its extensions. The merge will not happen
> immediately, but around the IETF69 time frame when
> MIP6 has completed a few more of its work items, MONAMI6
> has submitted its main specification, and NEMO has gotten
> on its way with its newly chartered work. The resulting
> working group will be bigger, but still committed to
> completing work on all three aspects, i.e., base features,
> support for multiple care-of addresses, and network
> mobility. The chartered work items or their planned
> delivery dates will not be changed because of this.
>
> The reasons why we are making this change include
>
> - Putting most of work around Mobile IPv6 and its extensions
>   into one place, reducing the need to coordinate, and
>   making it easier for new people and outsiders to see
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Jari Arkko | 16 Mar 2007 18:03

Re: [Monami6] reorganization of Mobile IPv6 related working groups

Jean-Michel Combes kirjoitti:
> Hi,
>
> Will there be a slot during the INT Area session in Prague about this?

No, because we are spending that slot on the routing
and addressing discussion. If you want to talk about it
in the meeting, come to one of the three WGs, or otherwise
just catch me somewhere and we can talk.

Jari
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Alexandru Petrescu | 16 Mar 2007 18:42
Picon

Re: reorganization of Mobile IPv6 related working groups

Jari Arkko wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We are planning to reorganize the MIP6, MONAMI6, and NEMO working
> groups in the Internet Area. The idea is to merge these three groups,
> all of which work around the Mobile IPv6 protocol and its extensions.
> 
[...]
> And an opportunity for comments, we do appreciate feedback on this
> and other issues relating to the management of the area.

IMHO.

A combined number of 27 WG items (quick count from WG pages, but may
vary until IETF69) with a large chunk from MIP6, then NEMO then MONAMI6.

A combined number of 5 Chairs (not 6).

Sounds like ramping down some activities may happen and maybe offering
more opportunities to BoFs may be good.

(the last such large reorganization of mobility was when MIP WG became
  MIP6/MIP4/MIPSHOP/MOBOPTSRG)

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane