headers
Arnaud Ebalard | 1 Sep 2010 13:57
Favicon

[MEXT] MIPv6 from IPv4-only networks: I-D and implementation

Hi,

MIPv6 protocol has been designed to work on IPv6 networks: nothing was
initially provisioned in the specification to support movement of MN to
IPv4-only networks. DSMIPv6 (RFC 5555) explores a path to try and
address this need: it requires IPv4/NAT-awareness by the MIPv6 module,
IKE module and IPsec stack. It is complex and monolithic (not modular).

I wrote a short I-D (13p) to support "MIPv6 from IPv4-only networks".
The protocol is called m6t. Latest version is available here:  

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ebalard-mext-m6t

For test purpose, I also developed a (proof of concept) implementation
(GPLv2 license) of the protocol (client and tunnel GW) for Linux. Code
(tarball and debian packages) and documentation (how it works,
comparison w/ DSMIPv6 and Teredo, ...) are available here: 

   http://natisbad.org/m6t/

It interoperates transparently and out of the box with unmodified
versions of UMIP (see http://umip.org). No kidding.

Comments and questions are welcome,

Cheers,

a+
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
IETF Secretariat | 1 Sep 2010 18:00
Picon
Favicon

[MEXT] IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about IPR related to RFC 5846 (2)

Dear Sri Gundavelli, Kuntal Chowdhury, Ahmad Muhanna, Mohamed Khalil, Parviz Yegani:

An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "Binding Revocation for
IPv6 Mobility" (RFC5846) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2010-08-30 and
has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1397/). The title of the IPR disclosure is
"Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to RFC 5846 (2)."

The IETF Secretariat
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Laganier, Julien | 1 Sep 2010 19:03

Re: [MEXT] MEXT charter for the IESG

Thierry,

W.r.t. the multihoming problem statement, publishing the problem statement after the WG has finished to
work on solutions seems of little value, which might explain why the WG hasn't been working on for more than
one year and a half...

W.r.t. the NEMO route optimization requirements, our previous charter included the following:

  If no requirements for those scenarios can be collected by the
  deadline, it will be assumed that the work is premature, and
  that type of deployment will be dropped from the WG. 

[...]

  May 2008 - Submit final doc on Route Optimization needs for Personal Mobile Router, for Informational
  May 2008 - Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for Automobile and Highway Deployments, for Informational

--julien

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I'm just wondering what is the fate of the former working group items /
> drafts regarding multihoming problem statement and NEMO RO
> requirements ?
> 
> Please forgive my naive question should the group made any decision on
> this.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thierry Ernst | 1 Sep 2010 19:17
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: [MEXT] MEXT charter for the IESG

  Hi Julien,
> W.r.t. the multihoming problem statement, publishing the problem statement after the WG has finished to
work on solutions seems of little value, which might explain why the WG hasn't been working on for more than
one year and a half...
I'm perfectly fine with that but since I didn't notice any discussion on 
this point I was wondering ...
> W.r.t. the NEMO route optimization requirements, our previous charter included the following:
>
>    If no requirements for those scenarios can be collected by the
>    deadline, it will be assumed that the work is premature, and
>    that type of deployment will be dropped from the WG.
Yes, and a draft about the automotive industry was submitted and 
revised. The current one has expired, but the draft show evidence of the 
interest of the car industry. In addition, solution space draft from 
Alex Petrescu and JongHyouk Lee has shown evidence on the MR-MR RO 
optimisation need.

So, has there been any discussion on excluding this work item from the 
new charter ? I haven't seen any.

Regards,
Thierry.

> [...]
>
>    May 2008 - Submit final doc on Route Optimization needs for Personal Mobile Router, for Informational
>    May 2008 - Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for Automobile and Highway Deployments, for Informational
>
> --julien
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
marcelo bagnulo braun | 1 Sep 2010 19:27
Picon

Re: [MEXT] MEXT charter for the IESG

  El 01/09/10 19:17, Thierry Ernst escribió:
> Yes, and a draft about the automotive industry was submitted and 
> revised. The current one has expired, but the draft show evidence of 
> the interest of the car industry.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-01

was submitted in july 2007 and nothing else happened ever since (3,5 
years without activity)

regards, marcelo
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alexandru Petrescu | 1 Sep 2010 19:41
Picon

Re: [MEXT] MEXT charter for the IESG

Le 01/09/2010 19:27, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
> El 01/09/10 19:17, Thierry Ernst escribió:
>> Yes, and a draft about the automotive industry was submitted and
>> revised. The current one has expired, but the draft show evidence
>> of the interest of the car industry.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-01
>
> was submitted in july 2007 and nothing else happened ever since (3,5
> years without activity)

Allow me correction... that draft was submitted, presented, discussed
for several months with disagreements and agreements.  Then it became WG
item:

           draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req

which went through further discussion and last updated in version
02 as of July 2009.

As pointed out by Thierry, some work happened to follow _some_ of the
requirements in this draft (for MR-to-MR communications.)

I think during these 3-5 years there was no blank period of no
discussion although the discussion was not as intense as the other MEXT
items.

I propose to take it into account.  It is very useful to have it
pursued.  There are currently automotive cases being discussed in SDOs
outside IETF which may be in line with the NEMO RO requirements, or may
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
marcelo bagnulo braun | 1 Sep 2010 19:52
Picon

Re: [MEXT] MEXT charter for the IESG

  Hi Alex,

El 01/09/10 19:41, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
> Le 01/09/2010 19:27, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>> El 01/09/10 19:17, Thierry Ernst escribió:
>>> Yes, and a draft about the automotive industry was submitted and
>>> revised. The current one has expired, but the draft show evidence
>>> of the interest of the car industry.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-01
>>
>> was submitted in july 2007 and nothing else happened ever since (3,5
>> years without activity)
>
> Allow me correction... that draft was submitted, presented, discussed
> for several months with disagreements and agreements.  Then it became WG
> item:
>
>           draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req
>
> which went through further discussion and last updated in version
> 02 as of July 2009.
>
you are right, of course
sorry for the mistake

well, actually, you are not right, in the sense that the draft was 
produced in january 2009 (and expired in july 2009), but anyway

> As pointed out by Thierry, some work happened to follow _some_ of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Laganier, Julien | 1 Sep 2010 20:15

Re: [MEXT] MEXT charter for the IESG

Hi Thierry,

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> 
>   Hi Julien,
> > W.r.t. the multihoming problem statement, publishing the problem
> > statement after the WG has finished to work on solutions seems of
> > little value, which might explain why the WG hasn't been working on for
> > more than one year and a half...
> > I'm perfectly fine with that but since I didn't notice any discussion
> > on this point I was wondering ...
> > W.r.t. the NEMO route optimization requirements, our previous charter
> > included the following:
> >
> >    If no requirements for those scenarios can be collected by the
> >    deadline, it will be assumed that the work is premature, and
> >    that type of deployment will be dropped from the WG.
>
> Yes, and a draft about the automotive industry was submitted and
> revised. 

The deadlines (May 2008) were missed, and two types of deployment got dropped, as per the charter.

> The current one has expired, but the draft show evidence of
> the interest of the car industry. 

I don't know if a single (expired) draft show interest from the car industry...

(or does it shows that the interest of the car industry has expired ;-)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alexandru Petrescu | 1 Sep 2010 20:43
Picon

Re: [MEXT] MEXT charter for the IESG

Le 01/09/2010 20:15, Laganier, Julien a écrit :
> Hi Thierry,
>
> Thierry Ernst wrote:
>>
>> Hi Julien,
>>> W.r.t. the multihoming problem statement, publishing the problem
>>>  statement after the WG has finished to work on solutions seems
>>> of little value, which might explain why the WG hasn't been
>>> working on for more than one year and a half... I'm perfectly
>>> fine with that but since I didn't notice any discussion on this
>>> point I was wondering ... W.r.t. the NEMO route optimization
>>> requirements, our previous charter included the following:
>>>
>>> If no requirements for those scenarios can be collected by the
>>> deadline, it will be assumed that the work is premature, and
>>> that type of deployment will be dropped from the WG.
>>
>> Yes, and a draft about the automotive industry was submitted and
>> revised.
>
> The deadlines (May 2008) were missed, and two types of deployment
> got dropped, as per the charter.
>
>> The current one has expired, but the draft show evidence of the
>> interest of the car industry.
>
> I don't know if a single (expired) draft show interest from the car
> industry...
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alexandru Petrescu | 1 Sep 2010 20:44
Picon

Re: [MEXT] MEXT charter for the IESG

Le 01/09/2010 19:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
>
> El 01/09/10 19:41, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>> Le 01/09/2010 19:27, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>> El 01/09/10 19:17, Thierry Ernst escribió:
>>>> Yes, and a draft about the automotive industry was submitted
>>>> and revised. The current one has expired, but the draft show
>>>> evidence of the interest of the car industry.
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-01
>>>
>>> was submitted in july 2007 and nothing else happened ever since
>>> (3,5 years without activity)
>>
>> Allow me correction... that draft was submitted, presented,
>> discussed for several months with disagreements and agreements.
>> Then it became WG item:
>>
>> draft-ietf-mext-nemo-ro-automotive-req
>>
>> which went through further discussion and last updated in version
>> 02 as of July 2009.
>>
> you are right, of course sorry for the mistake
>
> well, actually, you are not right, in the sense that the draft was
> produced in january 2009 (and expired in july 2009), but anyway
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane