I think there may need to be some work on dynamic HA assignment and security association configuration for client MIP. This is because DMM assumes that the MN will prefer the use of a locally assigned, more topologically correct address, which means it will need to set up dynamic relationships with HAs. Ideally, the MN would be able to use its network access credentials to set up the SA with the HA.
Even if that HA is not used for the localized mobility (i.e., we have netdmm or something) the HA would come in handy when the MN has moved beyond the scope of the netdmm solution. It could fall back to client MIP in that case. The netdmm solution could then be used in place of gratuitous ND/ARP to get the packets to the HA before they are tunneled to the MN on another network. This would widen the reach of the HA beyond a single link, and allow placement of the HA near the boundary of the netdmm region instead of on the link where the assigned address would fall topologically. The HA would then become completely analogous to a base station/ access router, in that you use your network access credentials to authenticate yourself to it, and where the remote tunnel connection is used instead of a wireless link. -Pete Jouni wrote: > > Alper, > > Thanks for the proposed text. I am not entirely sure about the > addition of the client mobility. It was not discussed during the > meeting when we were advised to add the maintenance part. > > What do the others think? > > - Jouni > > On Apr 4, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Alper Yegin wrote: > >> Jouni, >> >> One more thing: >> >> The DMM working group will also work on maintenance-oriented and >> incremental extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol, >> specified in RFC 5213 and RFC 5844. The Proxy Mobile IPv6 work >> primarily addresses any protocol gaps required to support >> existing deployments and other standards development >> organizations using the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol in their >> system architectures. >> We shall not shut the door on the client-based mobility. >> Hence, I propose the following revision: >> >> >> The DMM working group will also work on maintenance-oriented and >> incremental extensions to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, specified in >> RFC 5213, RFC 5844, and RFC 3775. >> >> I removed the last sentence because I wasn't sure if it really added >> any value. >> >> Alper >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 26, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Take a look at the latest revision. I have added the initial stab for >>> the milestones. Comments and flames are welcome. If you want something >>> to be changed, just propose text & diff. You might also want to say >>> why the change is needed. >>> >>> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re- charter/blob/master/recharter_draf >>> t.txt >>> >>> - Jouni >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
