Jouni.nosmap | 23 May 19:17 2016
Picon

WGLC reminder

Folks,

Friendly nudge to do reviews on drafts we got now in WGLC. 

Jouni

Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos..
Picon

dmm - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 96


A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Jouni Korhonen, a Chair of the dmm working group.

---------------------------------------------------------
Working Group Name: Distributed Mobility Management
Area Name: Internet Area
Session Requester: Jouni Korhonen

Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s):  2.5 Hours
Number of Attendees: 50
Conflicts to Avoid: 
 First Priority: dime detnet
 Second Priority: 6man v6ops

Special Requests:

---------------------------------------------------------
Jouni | 21 May 06:20 2016
Picon

WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-02

Folks,

This email starts the WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-02. Post your comment to the mailing list and
also add your issues/correction requests/concerns etc into the Issue Tracker.

	WGLC #1 Starts: 5/20/2016
	WGLC #1 Ends: 6/3/2016 EOB PDT

Regards,
	Jouni & Dapeng
internet | 21 May 04:23 2016
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-02.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Distributed Mobility Management of the IETF.

        Title           : Home Network Prefix Renumbering in PMIPv6 
        Authors         : Zhiwei Yan
                          Jong-Hyouk Lee
                          Xiaodong Lee
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-02.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2016-05-20

Abstract:
   In the basic Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) specification, a Mobile Node
   (MN) is assigned with a 64-bit Home Network Prefix (HNP) during its
   initial attachment for the Home Address (HoA) configuration.  During
   the movement of the MN, this prefix remains unchanged and in this way
   it is unnecessary for the MN to reconfigure its HoA and reconnect the
   ongoing communications.  However, the current PMIPv6 specification
   does not specify related operations to support the MN to timely
   receive and use a new HNP when the allocated HNP changes.  In this
   draft, a solution to support the HNP renumbering is proposed, as an
   update of the PMIPv6 specification.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-02

(Continue reading)

Jouni Korhonen | 16 May 20:23 2016
Picon

WGLC #1 for draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-01

Folks,

This email starts the WGLC #1 for 
draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-01. Post your comment to the 
mailing list and also add your issues/correction requests/concerns etc 
into the Issue Tracker.

	WGLC #1 Starts: 5/16/2016
	WGLC #1 Ends: 5/30/2016 EOB PDT

Regards,
	Jouni & Dapeng
Jouni Korhonen | 16 May 20:18 2016
Picon

reviews requested for draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-01

Folks,

Please, have a read on draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-01. More reviews 
are needed for this I-D before we move forward. It is a fairly short 
document..

If you have comments and want them addressed properly, also use the 
Issue Tracker to file your comments.

Regards,
	Jouni & Dapeng
Moses, Danny | 3 May 14:34 2016
Picon

Reachable vs Resolvable

 
Charlie suggested to refer to Reachable IP addresses as Resolvable IP addresses. This is in the introduction section of the draft that defines IP session continuity and IP address reachability.
This is also something we evaluated and decided not to change the text. We believe that the term Resolution is used with regards to host names, not IP addresses. Host names are either 'resolvable' or not. When a client needs to reach a server, it uses DNS and perform name –resolution to obtain the server’s IP address.
Therefore, we prefer to stay with the original definition.
Regards,
Alper and Danny
 
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the Intel Corporation group of companies

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Moses, Danny | 3 May 14:31 2016
Picon

How to detect the ending of an IP session

 
Behcet indicated that the draft does not define how the ending of an IP session is detected and stated that one cannot define a Sustained IP address type without defining how to detect the ending of an IP session.
Well, we do not think that a draft that extends the Socket interface should define how to detect the starting or ending of an IP session. This could be done in a separate draft and we are willing to participate in writing one if the group thinks it is important and part of the DMM charter.
RFC 5014, which this draft is extending, defines the ability to select Home-address or Care-of-address, but does not define how they are created or provided to the mobile host (and this is OK). We do not see why the definition of IP session begin/end is different.
But Behcet, we can provide some ideas for detecting IP session ending (if you are planning to provide a draft):
  • The Mobile host may issue an IP release DHCP message after the Socket is closed.
  • The network can detect the FIN sequence for TCP session
  • Watchdog mechanisms may be applied to detect long periods without any traffic on a specific 5-touple
But moreover, this draft does not claim that Session-lasting IP addresses Must not continue to be valid after the session ends. Networks may continue to guarantee there validity even after the session ends and new applications may use them in new IP sessions. It states that by requesting a Session-lasting IP address, the application informs that it will require a valid IP address throughout the IP session. Please refer to the text in the draft that explicitly allows both cases.
Regards,
Alper and Danny
 
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the Intel Corporation group of companies

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Moses, Danny | 3 May 14:27 2016
Picon

OnDemand draft: 3 address types discussion

 
This is in reply to comments we received from Behcet and Suresh regarding the three types of addresses define in the draft. Suresh commented that the ‘Fixed IP address’ is not necessary and application only require to select Sustained or Nomadic IP addresses and Behcet commented that the ‘Sustained IP address’ is not needed and not well define due to the fact that the draft does not define how to identify the end of an IP session (will be discussed in a separate email).
We have gave more thought to these types and concluded that the definitions in the spec were confusing. We are providing new text in the new version, hoping they are more clear.
We re-evaluated whether to stay with the definition of three IP address types or move to a two IP address type scheme and eventually concluded that it is better to stay with the three type alternative. We hope that the better text in the new draft version will clarify and here are some additional inputs:
Nomadic IP address (or in its new name: Non-persistent IP address):
Clearly this type is useful for all applications that do not require any IP session continuity guarantee from the network and wish to avoid the overhead introduced by the network as part of that guarantee (inefficient routes, tunneling etc…).
Sustained IP address (or in its new name: Session-lasting IP address):
This is our accurate definition for the IP session continuity service that some application require and is similar to what is provided today by default, by mobile operators via GTP or PMIP. Basically, current implementations provide  a guarantee for the source IP address to be valid throughout the time the mobile host is connected to the mobile network.
We concluded that mobile hosts do not really require such a guarantee. It is sufficient to require a guarantee of the IP address availability while there is/are an IP session(s) using this IP address and hence the more accurate definition. Furthermore, some WG members have shown cases in DMM where it is more efficient for applications to request a new Session-lasting IP address when launched rather than using an existing one that was allocated to the mobile host in the past. This is due to possible movement of the mobile host to a LAN which is being served by a mobility anchor that is different from the one that was used when the older Session-lasting IP address was assigned to the mobile host.
Fixed IP address (no renaming …):
We believe that this is where our original text was the most unclear leading to the confusion on the mailing list and the comments from the flour. A Fixed IP address is guaranteed by the network to Always be valid, even if the mobile host is not utilizing any IP sessions, or has been disconnected from the network for some time. This is a special service that mobile network operators provide for a premium charge, for servers, VPNs , secured content and other applications. With this IP address type the network operator provide IP address reachability in addition to IP session continuity, and mobile hosts may register these addresses in DNS infrastructure for name resolution.
Clearly, most mobile hosts do not require Fixed IP addresses and their owners will not pay the premium cost for this service, but still, it is a service that mobile operators provide and this is enough proof for us to acknowledge its need. Please see some examples from
providing this service (which is called: Static IP address)
Regards,
Alper and Danny
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the Intel Corporation group of companies

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Moses, Danny | 3 May 14:19 2016
Picon

A new version of the On-Demand draft

 
Hi all,
We thank everyone that provided comments and suggestions for improving the OnDemand draft. We have made some changes to the draft addressing some of the comments. The main changes were to improve the description of the three different source IP address types and improving their names.
We would like to address each of the comments (even those that did not lead to changes in the draft). Since there were quite a few, we grouped them into several topics and will address each one in a different email to enable a focus discussion (if any) on a per-topic basis.
Alper and Danny
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the Intel Corporation group of companies

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
internet-drafts | 3 May 14:14 2016
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Distributed Mobility Management of the IETF.

        Title           : On Demand Mobility Management
        Authors         : Alper Yegin
                          Kisuk Kweon
                          Jinsung Lee
                          Jungshin Park
                          Danny Moses
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2016-05-03

Abstract:
   Applications differ with respect to whether they need IP session
   continuity and/or IP address reachability.  The network providing the
   same type of service to any mobile host and any application running
   on the host yields inefficiencies.  This document describes a
   solution for taking the application needs into account in selectively
   providing IP session continuity and IP address reachability on a per-
   socket basis.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-03

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


Gmane