Dear all,
The MIP6 Analysis WG draft has been updated. We would be
happy to get
comments on this document prior to the Monami6 meeting next
Wednesday
in Chicago, the goal being the issue of a WGLC right after
the IETF
meeting.
ATTENTION PLEASE *** For comments on this update and open
issues,
please answer in a separate thread for each issue and update
the
subject line accordingly ***
Please find below a justification fot the main updates and
after this a
list of remaining points open for discussion, but this
summary should
not prevent you for re-reading the complete draft since
there are
substancial changes.
=== Summary of changes between version -03 and -02 ===
Changes in version -03 should be taken as suggestions, we
can roll back
in case of disagreement - for people who don't know, you can
easily see
the changes using the RFC diff tool: please see the results
in the
attached file for your convenience.
- vast editorial brushup almost everywhere throughout the
entire
document, including the following:
-- remove some redundancies,
-- many sentences in active mode changed to passive mode
-- use coherent wording/terms throughout the document
- "Interface switching/Flow distribution" replaced
with "Flow
Distribution". The former was replaced with the later
whenever
appropriate.
- Taxonomy: changed (Hx,Cy) to (x,y): this is controversial
and Nicolas
didn't agree with me, but I think (Hx,Cy) is harder to
grasp.
- Section 3: capabilities reordered according to order of
importance
- Section 5: Title changed from "Scenarios" to
"Configuration" in order
to avoid confusion with the Motivation & Scenario
draft.
- Section 5: the line "Achievable Goals" being
almost all the same,
this was removed, and replaced with a paragraph at the top
of the
section.
- Section 6: Reordered the "General IPv6-Related
Issues" (as in
draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues)
- Section 6.1.2: Issue "Path Exploration" added
(to comply with
draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues)
- Section 6.1.4: Issue 6.3.4 "Flow Redirection"
reworded and moved to
section 6.1.4 and renamed as "Rehoming" (to comply
with
draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues)
- Section 6.2.3: Issue "HA Synchronisation" added
- Added sections "Security consideration",
"IANA considerations" and
references now splitted in normative and informational.
=== Open discussion points ===
- Section 6.1. Shall all generic issues discussed in
draft-ietf-monami6-multhoming-motivation-scenario be
discussed in
draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis from a MIPv6 angle ? (I
think so)
- Section 6: Is the issue list complete ?
- Currently, the document mostly considers HoA and CoA. We
wonder if
the document should deal more with the multiple HA address
case than it
currently does. Note that this would require quite
substancial changes
to the document, possibly on the taxonomy itself. So, it the
document
is coherent in present state, we should rather not add this,
unless
there is an important perceived interest.
- The Routing Optimization feature of MIPv6 may bringing
another
alternative in the path selection (choose the optimized path
or the one
through the HA) which is not really discussed. I consider
this choice
as part of the multihoming-related decisions. Thoughts ?
- Table 6.4 will have to be proof-checked (once issues are
considered stable)
- More reference to Shim6 work should be added in
appropriate issues.
- Do we agree in the classification "MIPv6 Issues"
and "Implementation
Issues" ?
- Do we need a section explaining the reasons why failure
could occur
(HoA fails, CoA fails, interface fails, ...) ? (in Appendix
or
somewhere else ?)
- Is the text in Appendix at the right place or should it
be
moved/merged somethere else ?
Thierry.
Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-03.txt
Mobile IPv6 as specified in RFC 3775 allows a mobile node to
maintain
its IPv6 communications while moving between subnets. This
document
investigates configurations where a mobile node running
Mobile IPv6 is
multihomed. The use of multiple addresses is foreseen to
provide
ubiquitous, permanent and fault-tolerant access to the
Internet,
particularly on mobile nodes which are more prone to failure
or sudden
lack of connectivity. However, Mobile IPv6 currently lacks
support for
such multihomed nodes. The purpose of this document is to
detail all
the issues arising through the operation of Mobile IPv6 on
multihomed
mobile nodes.
--
Thierry ERNST, PhD
INRIA Rocquencourt France Project-Team IMARA / JRU LARA
http://www.lara.prd.fr
+33 1 39 63 59 30 (office)
--
The coming end of the IPv4 world: http://penrose.uk6x.com
_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6 ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
|
