Hi Fred, Thanks for clarifying.
We can maybe add your solution to the bunch classified as Mobile IP based approach, even though it does not require client software in the MN. We have a PMIP based solution and a routing based solution. All of these I think, form a good basis to work on in dmm. My 2 cents. Regards, Behcet On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Behcet, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:57 PM >> To: Templin, Fred L >> Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> I thought you said in your presentation that this draft is being >> AD-sponsored or going thru ISE? > > I think maybe you are talking about RFC6706, which was AD sponsored. > The (bis) has not been picked up by an AD sponsor nor a working group > yet, and is IMHO too far along in its evolution to fall back and take > it down the ISE path now. So, wg item would seem like a suitable path. > > Thanks - Fred > [email protected] > >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Templin, Fred L >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Behcet, >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:08 PM >> >> To: Templin, Fred L >> >> Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> >> >> Isn't AERO becoming an RFC already? >> > >> > We already have RFC6706 as an experimental RFC, but I am working >> > on a (bis) that will obsolete that: >> > >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-aerolink/ >> > >> > The (bis) does not currently have a wg home, so I thought I would >> > check to see if dmm would be a good home for it. >> > >> > Thanks - Fred >> > [email protected] >> > >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Behcet >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Templin, Fred L >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Sri, >> >> > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:40 PM >> >> >> To: Templin, Fred L; Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> >> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Fred, >> >> >> >> >> >> > Or, have IPv4 built-in from the onset for free; wouldn't that be >> >> >> > better? >> >> >> >> >> >> Cannot say without understanding the solution approach and the needed >> >> >> effort. But, I guess with AERO, you have some effort in mind. >> >> > >> >> > I have code that, while not pretty, is astonishingly simple. >> >> > I should be able to release that very soon. >> >> > >> >> > Thanks - Fred >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > >> >> >> Any case, its WG/Chairs/AD call, but works for me. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/19/14 1:34 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Hi Sri, >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:32 PM >> >> >> >> To: Templin, Fred L; Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Fred, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ack on the AERO capability. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >OK. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I have come to the conclusion that I have to deal with IPv4 for the >> >> >> >> rest >> >> >> >> of my career (assuming some left). Surely, some day in 2016 is not >> >> >> >> some >> >> >> >> thing that I'm looking at. My point is to limit the solution scope >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >>if >> >> >> >> it happens that DMM solution is immensely successful, we can >> >> >> >> introduce >> >> >> >> IPv4 interfaces in phases. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Or, have IPv4 built-in from the onset for free; wouldn't that >> >> >> >be better? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Thanks - Fred >> >> >> >[email protected] >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/19/14 12:54 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Hi Sri, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >I will just repeat that AERO works equally well on IPv4-only, >> >> >> >> >IPv6-only >> >> >> >> >and dual-stacked access networks. This means that it can address >> >> >> >> >real >> >> >> >> >world use cases today that cannot be addressed by other mechanisms. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >As to schedule, who can truly say when IPv4 will be totally gone >> >> >> >> >from >> >> >> >> >all access networks? 2016 is just a date on a calendar; we have >> >> >> >> >been >> >> >> >> >waiting for IPv6 to fully replace IPv4 since about 1994, and AFAICT >> >> >> >> >it still hasn't happened. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Thanks - Fred >> >> >> >> >[email protected] >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> >> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:33 PM >> >> >> >> >> To: Templin, Fred L; Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Fred, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The DMM WG is still discussing PS and the related issues. By the >> >> >> >>time we >> >> >> >> >> adopt a solution and complete the work, we will surely be in >> >> >> >> >> 2016. >> >> >> >>So, >> >> >> >> >>is >> >> >> >> >> it not safer to raise the bar and limit certain interfaces to >> >> >> >>IPv6-only >> >> >> >> >>? >> >> >> >> >> I'm not arguing against adding any support for IPv4, but IMO the >> >> >> >> >> bar >> >> >> >> >> should be high. We can certainly support all possible types of >> >> >> >>networks, >> >> >> >> >> IPv4-only transport, IPv4-only user plane, and IPv4-only >> >> >> >> >> services. >> >> >> >>But, >> >> >> >> >> looking at our current pace and doing some extrapolation, its >> >> >> >> >> safe to >> >> >> >> >>say >> >> >> >> >> we will bake this for a long time and so limiting the work scope >> >> >> >> >> IMO >> >> >> >> >> helps. But, this is just my opinion/comment and personally don't >> >> >> >>care if >> >> >> >> >> some one wants to do the work and the chairs/AD/WG agree with it. >> >> >> >>Also, >> >> >> >> >>I >> >> >> >> >> do not know yet how much of the solution work will really be >> >> >> >>IP-version >> >> >> >> >> dependent. Mostly some network interfaces and there IPv6 >> >> >> >> >> possibly is >> >> >> >>a >> >> >> >> >> safe assumption. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/19/14 11:30 AM, "Templin, Fred L" >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Hi Sri, >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> >> >> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri >> >> >> >>Gundavelli >> >> >> >> >> >>(sgundave) >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:20 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> To: Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Agree. We should ensure the base solution supports IPv6 >> >> >> >> >> >> transport >> >> >> >>and >> >> >> >> >> >>user >> >> >> >> >> >> sessions. Optionally, support for IPv4 can be allowed on >> >> >> >> >> >> certain >> >> >> >> >> >> interfaces, but clearly should not deal with IPv4, NAT's or >> >> >> >> >> >> allow >> >> >> >> >> >> IPv4-only solutions. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >I don't understand that. In my enterprise, I have IPv4-only >> >> >> >> >> >wireless >> >> >> >> >> >access points yet there are IPv6 services within the enterprise. >> >> >> >>When >> >> >> >> >> >I switch over to 4G wireless, I again get IPv4-only access but >> >> >> >> >> >again >> >> >> >> >> >there are IPv6 services within the enterprise. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >If the mobility management mechanism supports IPv6 over IPv4 >> >> >> >>tunneling >> >> >> >> >> >(possibly including NATs in the path), then the use case is >> >> >> >>satisfied; >> >> >> >> >> >otherwise, the use case is not satisfied. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Thanks - Fred >> >> >> >> >> >[email protected] >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> >> >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/18/14 8:43 AM, "Brian Haberman" >> >> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Hi Fred, >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >On 6/18/14 11:25 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Jouni, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:00 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Fred, >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> It is true IPv4 is there (and will be for a long time). >> >> >> >>Although >> >> >> >> >>the >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> charter does emphasize IPv6 as the base solution it does >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> not >> >> >> >> >> >>prohibit >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> adding IPv4 support. It is just we can accept an IPv6-only >> >> >> >> >>solution >> >> >> >> >> >>as >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>a >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> valid & complete solution from DMM point of view. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> However, a solution that works equally well whether the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> access >> >> >> >> >> >>networks >> >> >> >> >> >> >> are IPv6-only, dual-stack, or IPv4-only has clear >> >> >> >> >> >> >> advantages in >> >> >> >> >>terms >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of near-term deployment in real networks. Therefore, I >> >> >> >> >> >> >> think >> >> >> >>the >> >> >> >> >> >>charter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> is currently saying _too much_. My new proposal is simply >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >>strike >> >> >> >> >> >>the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> following two sentences: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "DMM solutions are primarily targeted at IPv6 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> deployments and >> >> >> >> >> >> >> should not be required to support IPv4, specifically in >> >> >> >> >>situations >> >> >> >> >> >> >> where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> IPv6 is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> assumed to be present in both the mobile host/router >> >> >> >> >> >> >> and the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> access networks." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >The above has been a part of the DMM charter for a long time. >> >> >> >> >>Taking >> >> >> >> >> >>it >> >> >> >> >> >> >out would appear to be opening the door for IPv4-only >> >> >> >> >> >> >solutions. >> >> >> >> My >> >> >> >> >> >> >assessment of the winds within the community is that people >> >> >> >> >> >> >are >> >> >> >>not >> >> >> >> >> >> >interested in new protocols for IPv4. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Just my opinion... >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> 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
