A modified charter has been submitted for the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 working group in the Internet Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by May 21, 2008. Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 (mext) -------------------------------------------------- Current Status: Active Working Group Last Modified: 2008-05-08 Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/mext Chair(s): Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@laposte.net> Marcelo Bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Internet Area Director(s): Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com> Internet Area Advisor: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Mailing Lists: General Discussion: mext@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current Description of Working Group: Mobile IPv6 specifies routing support which permits an IPv6 host to continue using its home address as it moves around the Internet, enabling continuity of sessions. Mobile IPv6 supports transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of active transport level sessions. In addition, network mobility (NEMO) mechanisms built on top of Mobile IPv6 allow managing the mobility of an entire network, as it changes its point of attachment to the Internet. The base specifications consist of: o RFC 3775 (Mobile IPv6) o RFC 3963 (NEMO) o RFC 4877 (Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2) The MEXT Working Group continues the work of the former MIP6, NEMO, and MONAMI6 Working Groups. The primary goal of MEXT will be to (A) enhance base IPv6 mobility by continuing work on developments that are required for wide-scale deployments and specific deployment scenarios. Additionally, (B) the working group will ensure that any issues identified by implementation and interoperability experience are addressed, and that the base specifications are maintained. (C) The group will also produce informational documentation, such as design rationale documents or description of specific issues within the protocol. Deployment considerations call for (A.1) solutions to enable dual-stack operation, (A.2) mechanisms to support high-availability home agents, (A.3) allowing the use of multiple interfaces in mobile nodes, (A.4) ways to employ Mobile IPv6 in the presence of firewalls, (A.5) address the specific needs of automotive and aviation communities for route optimisation in network mobility, (A.6) support for AAA is needed as a continuation of earlier work on bootstrapping, (A.7) revocation of binding, (A.8) generic notification message format and (A.9) extended DMSIP home network support . Work items related to large scale deployment include: (A.1) A Solution for Mobile IPv6 and NEMO session continuity for dual stack hosts which attach to IPv4 access networks. Additionally provide a mechanism for carrying IPv4 packets via the Home agent for Mobile IPv6 or NEMO capable dual-stack hosts. (A.2) A protocol based solution for enhancing the reliability of home agents and a method to force a host/router to switch home agents. A mechanism to force an MN to switch the HA that is currently serving it. This is required in deployments where the HA needs to be taken offline for maintenance. (A.3) Use of multiple interfaces. Today, the protocols do not provide suppport for simultaneous differentiated use of multiple access technologies. Several proposals exist for such support, and some of them have been implemented and tested. When a mobile host/router uses multiple network interfaces simultaneously, or when multiple prefixes are available on a single network interface, the mobile host/router would end up with multiple Care-of Addresses (CoAs). In addition, the Home Agent might be attached to multiple network interfaces, or to a single network interface with multiple prefixes, hence resulting in the option to use multiple IP addresses for the Home Agent. This could result in the possibility of using a multitude of bi-directional tunnels between pairs of {Home Agent address, CoA} and a number of associated issues: establishment, selection and modification of multiple simultaneous tunnels. The objective of the WG is to produce a clear problem statement and to produce standard track specifications to the problems associated with the simultaneous use of multiple addresses for either mobile hosts using Mobile IPv6 or mobile routers using NEMO Basic Support and their variants (FMIPv6, HMIPv6, etc). Where the effects of having multiple prefixes on a single interface is identical to the effects of having multiple interfaces each with a single prefix, the WG will consider a generalized approach to cater for multiple prefixes available to a mobile host/router. The WG uses existing tunneling mechanisms defined for Mobile IPv6. The involved nodes need to select which tunnel instance to use when multiple ones are available due to multiple addresses on either end. But the WG does not plan to define a new mechanism for this, but rather document how to use existing mechanisms based upon preferences or policies. In particular, the WG will consider that a tunnel is alive as long as packets can be exchanged with the corresponding peer. In addition, local information, such as interface up/down events, or other failure detection mechanisms can be used to quickly detect failure of tunnel(s). Deliverables related to this include - A document explaining the motivations for a node using multiple interfaces and the scenarios where it may end up with multiple global addresses on its interfaces [Informational] - An analysis document explaining what are the limitations for mobile hosts using multiple simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home Agent addresses using Mobile IPv6, whether issues are specific to Mobile IPv6 or not [Informational]. - A protocol extension to support the registration of multiple Care-of Addresses at a given Home Agent address [Standard Track]. - A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the Care-of Address and Home Agent address. The solution involves two specifications, one for the policy format and another for its transport [both Standard Track]. (A.4) Work on solutions to deal with firewalls and the problems that firewalls cause as identified in RFC 4487. (A.5) Route optimization of network mobility. Three use cases have been identified for this. These are called the Aviation case, the Automotive case, and the Personal Mobile Router (consumer electronics) case, though the actual technical problems are characterized by the type of movements and environments more than by the specific industry using the technology. The group will explore these cases to gather requirements and proceed with solving the open issues. (1) Airline and spacecraft community, who are deploying NEMO for control systems, as well as Internet connectivity and entertainment systems. This use case is characterized by fast (~ 1000 km/h) moving objects over large distances (across continents). The main technical problem is that tunneling-based solutions imply a roundtrip to another continent and that BGP based solutions imply significant churn in the global Internet routing table. (2) Automotive industry who are deploying NEMO for in-car communication, entertainment, and data gathering, possible control systems use, and communication to roadside devices. This use case is characterized by moderately fast (~ 100-300 km/h) moving objects that employ local or cellular networks for connectivity. (3) Personal Mobile Routers, which are consumer devices that allow the user to bring a NEMO network with the user while mobile, and communicate with peer NEMO Basic Support nodes and nodes served by them. After gathering the requirements for these types of deployments, the working group will evaluate what type of route optimization needs to be performed (if any), and formulate a solution to those problems. 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. The group will only consider airline and spacecraft solutions that combine tunneling solutions for small movements with either federated tunnel servers or slowly changing end host prefixes. The group will only consider personal mobile router requirements about optimized routes to another mobile router belonging to the same operator. The group will only consider automotive industry requirements to allow MR-attached hosts to directly access the network where MR has attached to. Work on automotive and personal mobile router solutions requires rechartering. The WG will not consider extensions to routing protocols. The group will not consider general multi-homing problems that are not related to the deployment and maintenance of Mobile IPv6 or NEMO Basic Support protocols. The group will also not consider general route optimization, or other problems that are not related to the deployment and maintenance of NEMO Basic Support protocols. Similarly, the group will not consider or rely on the results of general routing architecture, Internet architecture, or identifier-locator split issues that are discussed in separate, long term efforts elsewhere in the IETF. Finally, the group will not consider solutions that require changes from correspondent nodes in the general Internet (A.6) Bootstrapping mechanisms developed earlier in the MIP6 WG require AAA support for Mobile IPv6. Part of this work is already being done in the DIME WG, but the MEXT WG is chartered to complete a design for RADIUS. (A.7) Binding Revocation for IP Mobility: Define a binding revocation mechanism for Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. This mechanism can be used by any entity involved in the base Mobile IPv6 protocol or one of its extensions to request its corresponding entity to terminate either one, multiple or all binding cache entries. (A.8) Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6: A proposal for defining generic notification framework that can be used by the mobility entities for sending and receiving asynchronous notification messages was proposed and the same was adopted by the WG. (A.9) Extended DSMIPv6 Home Network Support: DSMIPv6 assumes the home network to be dual stack providing simultaneous IPv6 and IPv4 network access. It is proposed to extend DSMIPv6 to support home networks which provides IPv4, or IPv6 respectively, direct network access only, but where virtual IPv6 home network connectivity, or virtual IPv4 home network connectivity respectively, may be obtained by tunneling to the HA. The latter shall be obtained by DSMIPv6 operation using the v4HoA address as Care-of-address for the v6HoA address, and vice versa, the v6HoA address as care-of-address for the v4HoA address. Work items related to base specification maintenance include: (B.1) Create and maintain issue lists that are generated on the basis of implementation and interoperability experience. Address specific issues with specific updates or revisions of the base specification. One specific area of concern that should be analyzed and addressed relates to multilink subnets. This work item relates only to corrections and clarifications. The working group shall not revisit design decisions or change the protocol. (B.2) Update the IANA considerations of RFC 3775 to allow extensions for experimental purposes as well passing of optional vendor-specific information. (B.3) Finish working group documents that are currently in process, and submit for RFC. This includes prefix delegation protocol mechanism for network mobility, and a MIB for NEMO Basic Support. Work items related to informational documentation include: (C.1) Produce a design rationale that documents the historical thinking behind the introduction of an alternative security mechanism, the Authentication Protocol (RFC 4285). (C.2) Virtual Home Link configuration for Mobile IPv6: A proposal has been made on Mobile IPv6 home link configuration on virtual links. The proposal does not describe any new protocol, but provides the operational and configuration details and additionally provides implementation guidance for achieving this configuration. The group employs IPsec and IKE as a security mechanism. The group shall refrain, however, from making generic extensions to these protocols. Any proposed extension must be reviewed by the INT and SEC ADs before it can be accepted as a part of a work item. Goals and Milestones: Done Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Vendor Specific Option' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard Dec 2007 Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Dual-Stack Operation' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. Dec 2007 Submit I-D 'Motivation for Authentication I-D' to IESG for publication as Informational. Dec 2007 Submit Multiple CoA Registration to IESG Done Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Experimental Allocations' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard Feb 2008 Submit I-D 'Goals for AAA HA Interface' to IESG for publication as Informational. Feb 2008 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization needs for Personal Mobile Router Feb 2008 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for Automobile and Highway Deployments Feb 2008 Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization Needs for Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments Mar 2008 Submit the final doc on Prefix Delegation for NEMO to the IESG, for Proposed Standard Done Submit I-D 'Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard 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 May 2008 Submit final doc on Route Optimization Needs for Aircraft and Spacecraft Deployments, for Informational May 2008 Submit -00 draft for solution to aircraft/spacecraft problem Jun 2008 Determine how to proceed with remaining automotive/Personal Mobile Router solutions Jun 2008 Submit the I-D 'RADIUS Mobile IPv6 Support' to IESG for publication as a proposed standard. June 08 Submit 00 draft on Binding Revocation Jul 2008 Submit Analysis of the use of Multiple Simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home Agent addresses, for Informational Jul 2008 Submit Multiple Interfaces Motivations and Scenario to IESG, for Informational Aug 2008 Submit I-D 'Mobile IPv6 Operation with Firewalls' to IESG for publication as Informational. Aug 2008 Submit the final doc on MIB for NEMO Basic Support to the IESG, for Proposed Standard Oct 2008 Submit Flow/binding policy transport to IESG, for Proposed Standard Oct 2008 Submit Flow/binding policy format to IESG, for Proposed Standard Oct 08 Submit 00 draft on Generic Notification Oct 08 Submit draft on Binding Revocation to IESG Nov 2008 Submit final doc for solution to aircraft/spacecraft problem to the IESG, for Proposed Standard Nov 2008 Recharter to work on the remaining automotive/Personal Mobile Router solutions Dec 08 Submit 00 draft on Virtual Home link configuration Dec 08 Submit 00 draft on Extended DSMIPv6 Home Network support Dec 2008 Submit I-D(s) related to specific updates and corrections of RFC 3775 to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard. Dec 2008 Submit I-D 'Home agent reliability' to IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard. Jan 09 Submit draft on Generic Notification to IESG Mar 09 Submit draft on Virtual Home link configuration to IESG May 09 Submit draft on Extended DSMIPv6 Home Network support to IESG _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
