headers
Ed Jankiewicz | 1 Nov 2010 21:31

[MEXT] Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 Transition and coexistence

FYI

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jankiewicz-v6ops-v4v6biblio-03

Nothing original here.  This draft is intended to be a common ground 
reference for the review and discussion of the RFCs, drafts and outside 
references around the topics of IPv6 transition and coexistence.  This 
is an open-ended task as the landscape keeps changing.   I hope it saves 
some folks some time finding all the same context.

The draft is on the v6ops agenda for a very brief presentation, to cover 
the background/motivation, solicit further contributions and to ask for 
opinions on the future disposition of the draft.  This could be a 
one-time individual/info publication, or form the basis for some 
evolving wiki on the subject.  There were several additions just before 
the -00 draft submission cutoff, so folks are still coming up with new 
ideas in the problem space.

Given that drafts on the subject are being developed in several working 
groups, I'm circulating this on several lists for general interest, 
comments and contributions.  Please do not reply-all and cross-post on 
the lists but rather e-mail me directly with any 
oversights/additions/deletions/corrections to citations, and especially 
if you would like to add any explanatory text.

thx
edj

Abstract:
The Internet is in the early stages of what may be a protracted
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Laganier, Julien | 5 Nov 2010 11:48

Re: [MEXT] DRAFT agenda - Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 WG

Folks -

We have received a request from an individual who cannot make it on Monday to swap the Monday and Thursday
session so that he can attend the DMM discussion on Thursday. 

I know it is late but I'd still like to try to accommodate the request -- if that is not too much an
inconvenience to other MEXT participants.

Please reply privately to the chairs if this swap is problematic for you so that we can make the best decision
for the working group.

Thanks, and see you Monday.

--julien

-------------------------------------------------------------

MONDAY, November 8, 2010
0900-1130 Morning Session I
Valley Ballroom C	INT	mext	 Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 WG

- Administrativia, Chairs
  [10 min]

- Problem statement for distributed and dynamic mobility management
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-distributed-mobility-ps
  [30 min]

- Use case scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yokota-dmm-scenario
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Laganier, Julien | 7 Nov 2010 12:45

Re: [MEXT] DRAFT agenda - Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 WG

Folks -

We are SWAPING Monday and Thursday session thus DMM discussion will be held on Thursday and we'll discuss
regular MEXT topics tomorrow morning.

Presenters for MEXT regular topics - please send to me and Marcelo your slides by tomorrow morning 7:30 AM.

Thank you.

--julien

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Laganier, Julien
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:48 AM
> To: mext <at> ietf.org
> Cc: mext-chairs <at> tools.ietf.org; dmm <at> ietf.org; mext-ads <at> tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] DRAFT agenda - Mobility EXTensions for IPv6
> WG
> 
> Folks -
> 
> We have received a request from an individual who cannot make it on
> Monday to swap the Monday and Thursday session so that he can attend
> the DMM discussion on Thursday.
> 
> I know it is late but I'd still like to try to accommodate the request
> -- if that is not too much an inconvenience to other MEXT participants.
> 
> Please reply privately to the chairs if this swap is problematic for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jean-Michel Combes | 8 Nov 2010 03:31
Picon

[MEXT] Clarification regarding draft-laganier-mext-cga review

Hi,

As volunteer to review draft-laganier-mext-cga, I would like to know
whether the review must be based on the current version of the draft
(-00) or there will be a new (more complete) version soon?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards.

JMC.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Laganier, Julien | 8 Nov 2010 06:15

Re: [MEXT] Clarification regarding draft-laganier-mext-cga review

Jean-Michel -

I will poste an update this week. Thank you for volunteering to review the draft.

--julien

Jean-Michel Combes wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As volunteer to review draft-laganier-mext-cga, I would like to know
> whether the review must be based on the current version of the draft
> (-00) or there will be a new (more complete) version soon?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> JMC.
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ryuji Wakikawa | 9 Nov 2010 02:23
Picon

Re: [MEXT] Reviews of draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec

Hi Jouni and Raj,

I quickly reviewed draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec-06.txt. 

This document is well-written and can be easily read. 
I can't find any technical issues in the protocol definition. 

Here are some questions/comments.

1. How to define data traffic selector for encryption? 
IPsec has IPsec policy DB to decide which traffic should be applied encryption.
How can we apply encryption for certain data traffics? Is this up to implementation?

2. In Background.
In the early era of MIP6, signaling message was carried in IP header options. 
One of big reasons we can apply SSL for MIP security is that MIP has message type.
Nowadays, there are specs not even using MH message type.
RFC5844 carries MH encapsulated in UDP. Now you also carry MH messages in UDP. 

3. In 5.7.3, why not adding one entry for MNP. It can support NEMO without big change;-)

4. When I first read it, I prepared for many questions about RO signaling. At the very last of draft, it said RO
is out of scope:-)
Can you explicitly mention it a bit earlier? Maybe you can add one sentence at the definition of  Binding
Management Messages in Section2.

Non of alternate security mechanism (RFC4285 and this) support RO signaling. Is it MEXT WG strategy for
alternate security discussion?
Although I am not such fun of RO, I want some clarification on this.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
jouni korhonen | 9 Nov 2010 04:21
Picon

Re: [MEXT] Reviews of draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec

Ryuji,

Thanks for the review! See my comments inline.

On Nov 9, 2010, at 3:23 AM, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:

> Hi Jouni and Raj,
> 
> I quickly reviewed draft-korhonen-mext-mip6-altsec-06.txt. 
> 
> This document is well-written and can be easily read. 
> I can't find any technical issues in the protocol definition. 

Good.

> 
> Here are some questions/comments.
> 
> 1. How to define data traffic selector for encryption? 
> IPsec has IPsec policy DB to decide which traffic should be applied encryption.
> How can we apply encryption for certain data traffics? Is this up to implementation?

It is up to the implementation. Currently our implementation just uses xfrm framework to put policies in place.

> 
> 2. In Background.
> In the early era of MIP6, signaling message was carried in IP header options. 
> One of big reasons we can apply SSL for MIP security is that MIP has message type.
> Nowadays, there are specs not even using MH message type.
> RFC5844 carries MH encapsulated in UDP. Now you also carry MH messages in UDP.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ryuji Wakikawa | 9 Nov 2010 07:30
Picon

[MEXT] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-08

Hi all

We did editorial update to this document. Thanks Brian for your help!

regards,
ryuji

Begin forwarded message:

> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission <at> ietf.org>
> Date: 2010/11/09 07:25:18GMT+01:00
> To: ryuji.wakikawa <at> gmail.com
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-08 
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-08.txt has been successfully submitted by Ryuji
Wakikawa and posted to the IETF repository.
> 
> Filename:	 draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability
> Revision:	 08
> Title:		 Home Agent Reliability Protocol (HARP)
> Creation_date:	 2010-11-09
> WG ID:		 mext
> Number_of_pages: 44
> 
> Abstract:
> The home agent can be a single point of failure when Mobile IPv6 and
> its associated supporting protocols are operated in a system.  It is
> critical to provide home agent reliability in the event of a home
> agent crashing or becoming unavailable.  This would allow another
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Internet-Drafts | 9 Nov 2010 07:30
Picon
Favicon

[MEXT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-08.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Home Agent Reliability Protocol (HARP)
	Author(s)       : R. Wakikawa
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-08.txt
	Pages           : 44
	Date            : 2010-11-08

The home agent can be a single point of failure when Mobile IPv6 and
its associated supporting protocols are operated in a system.  It is
critical to provide home agent reliability in the event of a home
agent crashing or becoming unavailable.  This would allow another
home agent to take over and continue providing service to the mobile
nodes.  This document describes the problem scope briefly, and
provides mechanisms of home agent failure detection, home agent state
transfer, and home agent switching for home agent redundancy and
reliability.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-08.txt

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

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
Attachment (draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-08.txt): message/external-body, 70 bytes
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Laganier, Julien | 11 Nov 2010 03:44

[MEXT] Agenda for DMM discussion in MEXT session

Below is the agenda for this afternoon's session. Meeting material is available is avalaible at the usual
place: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/79/materials.html

--julien

THURSDAY, November 11, 2010
1740-1940  Afternoon Session III
Valley Ballroom C  	INT 	mext        	Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 WG 

- Administrativia, Chairs
  [10 min]

- Problem statement for distributed and dynamic mobility management, Dapeng Liu
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-distributed-mobility-ps
  [20 min]

- Use case scenarios for Distributed Mobility Management, Hidetoshi Yokota
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yokota-dmm-scenario
  [20 min]

- Distributed and Mobility Management with MIPv6, Julien Laganier
  [10 min]

- Discussion on Distributed Mobility Management
  [60 min]
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane