Templin, Fred L | 17 Apr 18:27 2015
Picon

AERO as DMM working group item

Hello,

I would like to request adoption of AERO as a DMM working group item
as a solution for enhanced mobility anchoring in particular and distributed
mobility management in general. The latest draft version of AERO is here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-aerolink/

Thank you for your consideration,

Fred Templin
fred.l.templin@...
h chan | 16 Apr 20:59 2015

Enhanced mobility anchoring

The enhanced mobility anchoring draft has been revised and posted:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-02

 

Changes include the following:

 

removed the words “anchoring of a session” to avoid disagreement on its meaning. Thanks to offline suggestion from Danny during IETF meeting.

 

Use the well defined term “flow”. (Session and flow were used interchangeably in previous version.) Thanks to offline suggestion from John.

 

Reference to other mobility solution drafts are explicitly made, they had been considered from the perspective of anchoring.

 

Security texts have been improved.

 

All 3 co-authors have carefully checked before we upload. We are now waiting for your feedback.

 

Thanks.

 

H Anthony Chan

 

From: h chan
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:55 PM
To: dmm <at> ietf.org
Subject: Enhanced mobility anchoring

 

I was asked to provide more explanation about anchoring.

 

Distributed mobility management may have anchoring functionality in different networks so that routes do not need to traverse a centralized anchor.

 

Yet, the definition of "anchoring function" (AF) in RFC 7333 is in terms of route advertisement for the IP address only, and such function is available in multiple network.

 

So what are the rest of the functions?

 

Such functions may tend to cause the packets to traverse certain nodes.

 

Consider a typical handover scenario: MN moves from Net1 moves to Net2, and CN is in Net3

 

The old AR (AR1) of MN in Net1 performs RA for IP1; the new AR (AR2) of MN in Net2 performs RA for IP2; the AR (AR3) of CN in Net3 performs RA for IP3.

 

The additional functions at AR1 and AR2 both try to cause the packets of the flow to traverse them. If we call these additional functions part of distributed anchoring function, the question is what they are anchoring.

 

So according to the definition of AF, AR1 performs AF for IP1; AR2 performs AF for IP2 (not IP1); and AR3 performs AF for IP3.

 

One approach is to borrow the well known concept of separation of session ID (SID) from routing address. There are tons of papers addressing such separation, and the lack of such separation is considered the fundamental problem of breaking session as an IP address changes during handover.

 

In line with this separation, the function of anchoring of a session/flow can be separated from that of anchoring an IP address.

 

The separation of session ID and routing address can be considered a generalization, because the session ID can be anything. An example is HIT in the IETF protocol HIP.

 

The use of HoA and CoA can be considered a particular case of SID and routing address separation. In using indirection, one IP address (CoA) is used for routing, whereas another IP address (HoA) is used in the socket as part of the SID identification.

 

Another IETF protocol of such separation is LISP.

 

In one example of handover scenario the desired path can be:

 

packet from CN first goes to AR3, to which IP3 is anchored.

 

it then goes to AR1, to which IP1 is anchored.

 

it then goes to AR2, to which IP2 is anchored.

 

What causes the packets of the flow to go this way may be:

 

AR2 has the location information: the binding of SID of the flow (IP1) to IP address of AR2. It sends this information to AR1.

 

Such additional function basically tries to cause the packets of the flow (IP1) to traverse AR1 and AR2.

 

In another example of this same scenario, the desired path is:

 

packet from CN first goes to AR3, to which IP3 is anchored.

 

it then goes directly to AR2, to which IP2 is anchored.

 

What causes the packets of the flow to go this way may be:

 

AR3 has the location information: the binding of SID of the flow (IP1) to IP address of AR2.

 

Please let me know if any of these is not clear enough. Thank you.

 

H Anthony Chan

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Z.W. Yan | 13 Apr 07:33 2015
Picon

New Version Notification for draft-yan-dmm-hnprenum-01.txt

Hi, all,
During the Dallas meeting, we introduced the issue of HNP-renumbering in PMIPv6 and heard some positive voices.
In order to present it more clearly and collect more comments, 
we updated the draft with the 01 version.
 
Any comments from you are all welcome.
Thanks.
Zhiwei Yan
 
 
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Picon

Re: Call for adoption: draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03

I support the adoption of this I-D.

Byoung-Jo "J" Kim
macsbug@...
AT&T Labs - Research

http://sites.google.com/site/macsbug/

>> From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@...>
>> Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03
>> Date: April 4, 2015 3:03:57 AM GMT+03:00
>> To: "dmm@..." <dmm@...>, Jouni
<jouni.nospam@...>, Dapeng Liu
<maxpassion@...>, draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility@...
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> This email starts a two week adoption call for the I-D
>>  draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03
>> to confirm its adoption as a DMM WG document and as a basis for the technical solution. The call ends April
17th EOB PDT.
>> 
>> Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the IETF92 meeting we got 10 voices for the
adoption and 3 against. we expect at least the same amount of expressed opinions on the list.
>> 
>> Notice that version -01 of this I-D had an IPR declared to it. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2309/
>> 
>> - Jouni & Dapeng
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> dmm@...
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Seil Jeon | 6 Apr 14:37 2015
Picon

test (ignore)

test

 

 

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Jouni Korhonen | 4 Apr 02:03 2015
Picon

Call for adoption: draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03

Folks,

This email starts a two week adoption call for the I-D
   draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03
to confirm its adoption as a DMM WG document and as a basis for the 
technical solution. The call ends April 17th EOB PDT.

Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the 
IETF92 meeting we got 10 voices for the adoption and 3 against. we 
expect at least the same amount of expressed opinions on the list.

Notice that version -01 of this I-D had an IPR declared to it. See 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2309/

- Jouni & Dapeng
Templin, Fred L | 3 Apr 20:12 2015
Picon

question on 'draft-moses-dmm-dhcp-ondemand-mobility'

Hi Danny and Alper,

In this draft, you seem to be considering only DHCPv6 address delegation for
when the node is acting as a mobile host. I am wondering if there are similar
considerations for DHCPv6 prefix delegation for when the node is acting as
a mobile router.

But then, I wonder whether any type of prefix delegation other than a
fixed prefix makes any sense. For example, if the mobile router received
a nomadic prefix delegation, would it need to renumber its connected
networks every time it moves and receives a new nomadic prefix?

Should this document discuss prefix delegation considerations for mobile
routers, or only address delegation for mobile hosts?

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@...
h chan | 3 Apr 04:11 2015

Re: enhanced mobility anchoring

The timezone in the doodle is US central time. I tried to enter 8am and 9am in US Central time, but I am not sure whether you can change the time zone to view it.

 

H Anthony Chan

 

From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin-X8CqP27nNzzQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 4:57 PM
To: h chan
Subject: RE: enhanced mobility anchoring

 

Hi Anthony,

 

What is the timezone represented in the doodle poll?

 

Thanks - Fred

 

From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces-EgrivxUAwEY@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of h chan
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 2:49 PM
To: dmm-EgrivxUAwEY@public.gmane.org
Subject: [DMM] enhanced mobility anchoring

 

Please check your availability for teleconference next week. Thanks.

http://doodle.com/ex3drz8xt4cc7m9r

 

H Anthony Chan

 

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Jouni Korhonen | 2 Apr 16:21 2015
Picon

Call for adoption: draft-wt-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00

Folks,

This emails starts a two week call for the I-D
   draft-wt-dmm-fpc-cpdp-00
to confirm the adoption as a DMM WG document. The call ends April 16th 
EOB PDT.

Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the 
IETF92 meeting we got 10 voices for the adoption so at least the same 
amount supporting emails should be expected.

- Jouni & Dapeng
Jouni Korhonen | 1 Apr 17:02 2015
Picon

Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01

Folks,

This emails starts a two week call for the I-D
   draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th 
EOB PST.

Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the 
IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same 
amount supporting emails should be expected.

- Jouni & Dapeng
Jouni Korhonen | 1 Apr 07:04 2015
Picon

IETF#92 meeting minutes available

The minutes are here:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dmm/minutes?item=minutes-92-dmm.html

Thanks to John for taking extensive minutes.

- Jouni & dapeng

Gmane