From maxpassion@gmail.com  Wed Mar  2 19:16:07 2011
Return-Path: <maxpassion@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299283A692B; Wed,  2 Mar 2011 19:16:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4cBLYwzCg2I; Wed,  2 Mar 2011 19:16:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0AE3A6403; Wed,  2 Mar 2011 19:16:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so664670iwl.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:17:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0pswyZ8KTZhvloIrXp5UVHNlWCX8Qz2gGnlpllFhd5o=; b=XJ3y0WElewTHcjqJ+ivUjNwHGhNOL3/0ZQGMmR5Wi1BEPGU2r2h32xprZfO2iCpIu+ Yym2z/cJMEoT7p/MVUXRp6SnSRJHi8VLY0plryMVXL7Ktc8Q5CHEAILXn90sc3Ik4Msh PNT1xRJbR7rPk9vDvwGTQqJAVug/7va13sh6o=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=dXyCvYRiALzPh0SZ3h7EhHfUkCIk7VeHtPKh8dJ6dJBbs1vIF9hV+bwvTDHXUSwXJ4 KcmqZhy3hXRbT61loXEXL2BjLacAzE0mbne9kWmdFRkQVNo5cdfaPSaYHulQjD6W/Wnk tk//PGWpBUt1FwgTBjbVQKtThH8kfA8w3t9aM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.43.64.78 with SMTP id xh14mr1022468icb.428.1299122230244; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.213.67 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 19:17:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <339086.13026.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <C95CE87E.D35B%sgundave@cisco.com> <4D388641.7060405@piuha.net> <AANLkTimu4+VHtRmEHfFP--xQiW2KkoQ1JmHOonCUrSSi@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinT1EEco1o+nyzad7k11dkzir8HtwMgVoNZxhQx@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikjJ5Pkte2MbV4GOo3tutfr8ehKx7NDUi2keh4z@mail.gmail.com> <339086.13026.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:17:09 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinTO-Xe=1hQvhKaxEyfBkjU=mWOA=tBuP7r1wyP@mail.gmail.com>
From: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, dmm@ietf.org, "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:16:07 -0000

Hi Behcet,


2011/2/19, Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>:
> Hi Dapeng,
>
>
>
>>
>> Hello Julien,
>>
>> Thanks for the information. But my question is: since the  charter is
>> extended to "work on operational considerations on setting up  Mobile
>> IPv6 networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way".  Does
>> it mean that the extended charter include  problem/gap/scenario
>> analysis of distributing the mobility anchor  (DMM)?
>>
>> I remember it seem that people agreed to do the analysis work of  DMM
>> as the first step in Beijing meeting?
>
> My understanding is that the new informational document will be inline with
> Julien's presentation he had in Beijing mext additional session we had on
> dmm
> and explain how MIPv6 as defined currently can be used to distribute the
> traffic
> in an optimal way.
>
> I suggest that you take the lead in this effort.

==>

I think DMM barbof contributors have already done some work in this
area. So if people agree I would like to organize writing this draft.
Anyone who is interested
to join the design team could reply this mail to let me know. thanks.

Best regards,
Dapeng Liu

> Regards,
>
> Behcet
>
>
>
>
>

From elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it  Thu Mar  3 02:50:12 2011
Return-Path: <elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7444E3A69B5; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 02:50:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bgBXyebi6aLg; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 02:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg701ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A6A3A6898; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 02:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grfhub704ba020.griffon.local (10.188.101.117) by GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:51:16 +0100
Received: from GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.12]) by grfhub704ba020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.117]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:51:16 +0100
From: Demaria Elena <elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it>
To: 'liu dapeng' <maxpassion@gmail.com>, 'Behcet Sarikaya' <sarikaya@ieee.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:51:11 +0100
Thread-Topic: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
Thread-Index: AcvZUYCXfHbBkh90Rp2NMbsTgGYrdAAPzXzQ
Message-ID: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A531098CF9@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local>
References: <C95CE87E.D35B%sgundave@cisco.com> <4D388641.7060405@piuha.net> <AANLkTimu4+VHtRmEHfFP--xQiW2KkoQ1JmHOonCUrSSi@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinT1EEco1o+nyzad7k11dkzir8HtwMgVoNZxhQx@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikjJ5Pkte2MbV4GOo3tutfr8ehKx7NDUi2keh4z@mail.gmail.com> <339086.13026.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinTO-Xe=1hQvhKaxEyfBkjU=mWOA=tBuP7r1wyP@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinTO-Xe=1hQvhKaxEyfBkjU=mWOA=tBuP7r1wyP@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "'dmm@ietf.org'" <dmm@ietf.org>, "'mext@ietf.org'" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:50:12 -0000

Hi Dapeng,
I'd like to contribute to this work.

Elena


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of liu
> dapeng
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 4:17 AM
> To: Behcet Sarikaya
> Cc: dmm@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed mobility
> work
>
> Hi Behcet,
>
>
> 2011/2/19, Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>:
> > Hi Dapeng,
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Hello Julien,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the information. But my question is: since the  charter is
> >> extended to "work on operational considerations on setting up  Mobile
> >> IPv6 networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way".  Does
> >> it mean that the extended charter include  problem/gap/scenario
> >> analysis of distributing the mobility anchor  (DMM)?
> >>
> >> I remember it seem that people agreed to do the analysis work of  DMM
> >> as the first step in Beijing meeting?
> >
> > My understanding is that the new informational document will be inline
> with
> > Julien's presentation he had in Beijing mext additional session we had
> on
> > dmm
> > and explain how MIPv6 as defined currently can be used to distribute th=
e
> > traffic
> > in an optimal way.
> >
> > I suggest that you take the lead in this effort.
>
> =3D=3D>
>
> I think DMM barbof contributors have already done some work in this
> area. So if people agree I would like to organize writing this draft.
> Anyone who is interested
> to join the design team could reply this mail to let me know. thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Dapeng Liu
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Behcet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per=
sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall=
a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb=
iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar=
ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione=
, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged =
information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri=
nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r=
ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen=
der by return e-mail, Thanks.


From pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com  Thu Mar  3 05:49:04 2011
Return-Path: <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 322CD3A6878; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 05:49:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.952
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.297,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ozAvwYN3OVg3; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 05:49:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136C83A6866; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 05:49:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 350BCFC4075; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 14:50:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288ACFC405F; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 14:50:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:36:25 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 14:36:24 +0100
Message-ID: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C46201887F9F@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A531098CF9@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
Thread-Index: AcvZUYCXfHbBkh90Rp2NMbsTgGYrdAAPzXzQAAQlKmA=
References: <C95CE87E.D35B%sgundave@cisco.com> <4D388641.7060405@piuha.net><AANLkTimu4+VHtRmEHfFP--xQiW2KkoQ1JmHOonCUrSSi@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTinT1EEco1o+nyzad7k11dkzir8HtwMgVoNZxhQx@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTikjJ5Pkte2MbV4GOo3tutfr8ehKx7NDUi2keh4z@mail.gmail.com><339086.13026.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><AANLkTinTO-Xe=1hQvhKaxEyfBkjU=mWOA=tBuP7r1wyP@mail.gmail.com> <36A93B31228D3B49B691AD31652BCAE9A531098CF9@GRFMBX702BA020.griffon.local>
From: <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: <elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it>, <maxpassion@gmail.com>, <sarikaya@ieee.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2011 13:36:25.0401 (UTC) FILETIME=[FDFA8290:01CBD9A7]
Cc: dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:49:04 -0000

Hi Dapeng,

I'm also interesting in working on this item. Also agree, and happy, =
that you lead the work.

Pierrick
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De=A0: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part =
de
> Demaria Elena
> Envoy=E9=A0: jeudi 3 mars 2011 11:51
> =C0=A0: 'liu dapeng'; 'Behcet Sarikaya'
> Cc=A0: 'dmm@ietf.org'; 'mext@ietf.org'
> Objet=A0: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed =
mobility
> work
>=20
> Hi Dapeng,
> I'd like to contribute to this work.
>=20
> Elena
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf =
Of
> liu
> > dapeng
> > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 4:17 AM
> > To: Behcet Sarikaya
> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed =
mobility
> > work
> >
> > Hi Behcet,
> >
> >
> > 2011/2/19, Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>:
> > > Hi Dapeng,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Hello Julien,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the information. But my question is: since the  =
charter is
> > >> extended to "work on operational considerations on setting up  =
Mobile
> > >> IPv6 networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way".
> Does
> > >> it mean that the extended charter include  problem/gap/scenario
> > >> analysis of distributing the mobility anchor  (DMM)?
> > >>
> > >> I remember it seem that people agreed to do the analysis work of  =
DMM
> > >> as the first step in Beijing meeting?
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the new informational document will be =
inline
> > with
> > > Julien's presentation he had in Beijing mext additional session we =
had
> > on
> > > dmm
> > > and explain how MIPv6 as defined currently can be used to =
distribute
> the
> > > traffic
> > > in an optimal way.
> > >
> > > I suggest that you take the lead in this effort.
> >
> > =3D=3D>
> >
> > I think DMM barbof contributors have already done some work in this
> > area. So if people agree I would like to organize writing this =
draft.
> > Anyone who is interested
> > to join the design team could reply this mail to let me know. =
thanks.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Dapeng Liu
> >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Behcet
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmm mailing list
> > dmm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>=20
> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente =
alle
> persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione =
derivante
> dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate.
> Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete =
cortesemente
> pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere =
alla
> sua distruzione, Grazie.
>=20
> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain =
privileged
> information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, =
copying,
> printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and
> advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

From anthonychan@huawei.com  Thu Mar  3 09:52:34 2011
Return-Path: <anthonychan@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BABE3A6860; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 09:52:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9qBljKH8YFjQ; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 09:52:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usaga02-in.huawei.com (usaga02-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A839A3A6810; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 09:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LHH00HV0TPGQQ@usaga02-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:53:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from C73782 ([10.124.9.58]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LHH006JETPFRE@usaga02-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:53:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:53:35 -0600
From: Anthony Chan <anthonychan@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C46201887F9F@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
To: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com, elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it, maxpassion@gmail.com, sarikaya@ieee.org
Message-id: <001301cbd9cb$eb33a550$3a097c0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-index: AcvZUYCXfHbBkh90Rp2NMbsTgGYrdAAPzXzQAAQlKmAACp3L0A==
Cc: dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:52:34 -0000

Dapeng,
I also like to contribute.
H Anthony Chan

-----Original Message-----
From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:36 AM
To: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it; maxpassion@gmail.com; =
sarikaya@ieee.org
Cc: dmm@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed mobility =
work

Hi Dapeng,

I'm also interesting in working on this item. Also agree, and happy, =
that
you lead the work.

Pierrick
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De=A0: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part =
de
> Demaria Elena
> Envoy=E9=A0: jeudi 3 mars 2011 11:51
> =C0=A0: 'liu dapeng'; 'Behcet Sarikaya'
> Cc=A0: 'dmm@ietf.org'; 'mext@ietf.org'
> Objet=A0: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed =
mobility
> work
>=20
> Hi Dapeng,
> I'd like to contribute to this work.
>=20
> Elena
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf =
Of
> liu
> > dapeng
> > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 4:17 AM
> > To: Behcet Sarikaya
> > Cc: dmm@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed =
mobility
> > work
> >
> > Hi Behcet,
> >
> >
> > 2011/2/19, Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>:
> > > Hi Dapeng,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Hello Julien,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the information. But my question is: since the  =
charter is
> > >> extended to "work on operational considerations on setting up  =
Mobile
> > >> IPv6 networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way".
> Does
> > >> it mean that the extended charter include  problem/gap/scenario
> > >> analysis of distributing the mobility anchor  (DMM)?
> > >>
> > >> I remember it seem that people agreed to do the analysis work of  =
DMM
> > >> as the first step in Beijing meeting?
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the new informational document will be =
inline
> > with
> > > Julien's presentation he had in Beijing mext additional session we =
had
> > on
> > > dmm
> > > and explain how MIPv6 as defined currently can be used to =
distribute
> the
> > > traffic
> > > in an optimal way.
> > >
> > > I suggest that you take the lead in this effort.
> >
> > =3D=3D>
> >
> > I think DMM barbof contributors have already done some work in this
> > area. So if people agree I would like to organize writing this =
draft.
> > Anyone who is interested
> > to join the design team could reply this mail to let me know. =
thanks.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Dapeng Liu
> >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Behcet
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmm mailing list
> > dmm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>=20
> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente =
alle
> persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione =
derivante
> dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate.
> Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete =
cortesemente
> pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere =
alla
> sua distruzione, Grazie.
>=20
> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain =
privileged
> information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, =
copying,
> printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and
> advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm


From song.jun@zte.com.cn  Thu Mar  3 22:17:12 2011
Return-Path: <song.jun@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C213A692D; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 22:17:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.993
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.993 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9VtmQ8kFoirv; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 22:17:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D31B3A6906; Thu,  3 Mar 2011 22:17:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 205953819011522; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:12:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 84746.8403937474; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:18:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p246HtE6064596; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:17:55 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from song.jun@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <001301cbd9cb$eb33a550$3a097c0a@china.huawei.com>
To: Anthony Chan <anthonychan@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OF9F38450F.C56BF810-ON48257849.001E2C96-48257849.00229922@zte.com.cn>
From: song.jun@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:17:59 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-03-04 14:17:57, Serialize complete at 2011-03-04 14:17:57
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0022991F48257849_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p246HtE6064596
Cc: maxpassion@gmail.com, dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org, mext-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: [MEXT] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogUmU6ICBbZG1tXSBzdWdnZXN0IGNoYXJ0ZXIg?= =?gb2312?b?aXRlbSBmb3IgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQgbW9iaWxpdHkgd29yaw==?=
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:17:12 -0000

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0022991F48257849_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

SGnvvIwgRGFwZW5nDQoNCkkgYW0gaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGl0ZW0uICDvvKlhbSBnbGFk
IHRvIHdvcmsgd2l0aCB5b3UgYWxsLg0KDQpIYXZlIGEgbmljZSB3ZWVrZW5kIQ0KDQpKdW4gU29u
Zw0KDQoNCg0KDQpBbnRob255IENoYW4gPGFudGhvbnljaGFuQGh1YXdlaS5jb20+IA0K5Y+R5Lu2
5Lq6OiAgbWV4dC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnDQoyMDExLTAzLTA0IOS4iuWNiCAwMTo1Mw0KDQrm
lLbku7bkuroNCnBpZXJyaWNrLnNlaXRlQG9yYW5nZS1mdGdyb3VwLmNvbSwgZWxlbmEuZGVtYXJp
YUB0ZWxlY29taXRhbGlhLml0LCANCm1heHBhc3Npb25AZ21haWwuY29tLCBzYXJpa2F5YUBpZWVl
Lm9yZw0K5oqE6YCBDQpkbW1AaWV0Zi5vcmcsIG1leHRAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCuS4u+mimA0KUmU6IFtN
RVhUXSBbZG1tXSBzdWdnZXN0IGNoYXJ0ZXIgaXRlbSBmb3IgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQgbW9iaWxpdHkg
d29yaw0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KRGFwZW5nLA0KSSBhbHNvIGxpa2UgdG8gY29udHJpYnV0ZS4NCkgg
QW50aG9ueSBDaGFuDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBkbW0tYm91
bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmRtbS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YN
CnBpZXJyaWNrLnNlaXRlQG9yYW5nZS1mdGdyb3VwLmNvbQ0KU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXksIE1hcmNo
IDAzLCAyMDExIDc6MzYgQU0NClRvOiBlbGVuYS5kZW1hcmlhQHRlbGVjb21pdGFsaWEuaXQ7IG1h
eHBhc3Npb25AZ21haWwuY29tOyANCnNhcmlrYXlhQGllZWUub3JnDQpDYzogZG1tQGlldGYub3Jn
OyBtZXh0QGlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW2RtbV0gW01FWFRdIHN1Z2dlc3QgY2hhcnRl
ciBpdGVtIGZvciBkaXN0cmlidXRlZCBtb2JpbGl0eSANCndvcmsNCg0KSGkgRGFwZW5nLA0KDQpJ
J20gYWxzbyBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyBpbiB3b3JraW5nIG9uIHRoaXMgaXRlbS4gQWxzbyBhZ3JlZSwg
YW5kIGhhcHB5LCB0aGF0DQp5b3UgbGVhZCB0aGUgd29yay4NCg0KUGllcnJpY2sNCj4gLS0tLS1N
ZXNzYWdlIGQnb3JpZ2luZS0tLS0tDQo+IERlIDogZG1tLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0
bzpkbW0tYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gRGUgbGEgcGFydCBkZQ0KPiBEZW1hcmlhIEVsZW5hDQo+
IEVudm95w6kgOiBqZXVkaSAzIG1hcnMgMjAxMSAxMTo1MQ0KPiDDgCA6ICdsaXUgZGFwZW5nJzsg
J0JlaGNldCBTYXJpa2F5YScNCj4gQ2MgOiAnZG1tQGlldGYub3JnJzsgJ21leHRAaWV0Zi5vcmcn
DQo+IE9iamV0IDogUmU6IFtkbW1dIFtNRVhUXSBzdWdnZXN0IGNoYXJ0ZXIgaXRlbSBmb3IgZGlz
dHJpYnV0ZWQgbW9iaWxpdHkNCj4gd29yaw0KPiANCj4gSGkgRGFwZW5nLA0KPiBJJ2QgbGlrZSB0
byBjb250cmlidXRlIHRvIHRoaXMgd29yay4NCj4gDQo+IEVsZW5hDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gPiAtLS0t
LU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiA+IEZyb206IGRtbS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFtt
YWlsdG86ZG1tLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZg0KPiBsaXUNCj4gPiBkYXBl
bmcNCj4gPiBTZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgTWFyY2ggMDMsIDIwMTEgNDoxNyBBTQ0KPiA+IFRvOiBC
ZWhjZXQgU2FyaWtheWENCj4gPiBDYzogZG1tQGlldGYub3JnOyBtZXh0QGlldGYub3JnDQo+ID4g
U3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtkbW1dIFtNRVhUXSBzdWdnZXN0IGNoYXJ0ZXIgaXRlbSBmb3IgZGlzdHJp
YnV0ZWQgDQptb2JpbGl0eQ0KPiA+IHdvcmsNCj4gPg0KPiA+IEhpIEJlaGNldCwNCj4gPg0KPiA+
DQo+ID4gMjAxMS8yLzE5LCBCZWhjZXQgU2FyaWtheWEgPGJlaGNldHNhcmlrYXlhQHlhaG9vLmNv
bT46DQo+ID4gPiBIaSBEYXBlbmcsDQo+ID4gPg0KPiA+ID4NCj4gPiA+DQo+ID4gPj4NCj4gPiA+
PiBIZWxsbyBKdWxpZW4sDQo+ID4gPj4NCj4gPiA+PiBUaGFua3MgZm9yIHRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlv
bi4gQnV0IG15IHF1ZXN0aW9uIGlzOiBzaW5jZSB0aGUgIGNoYXJ0ZXIgDQppcw0KPiA+ID4+IGV4
dGVuZGVkIHRvICJ3b3JrIG9uIG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zIG9uIHNldHRpbmcg
dXAgDQpNb2JpbGUNCj4gPiA+PiBJUHY2IG5ldHdvcmtzIHNvIHRoYXQgdHJhZmZpYyBpcyBkaXN0
cmlidXRlZCBpbiBhbiBvcHRpbWFsIHdheSIuDQo+IERvZXMNCj4gPiA+PiBpdCBtZWFuIHRoYXQg
dGhlIGV4dGVuZGVkIGNoYXJ0ZXIgaW5jbHVkZSAgcHJvYmxlbS9nYXAvc2NlbmFyaW8NCj4gPiA+
PiBhbmFseXNpcyBvZiBkaXN0cmlidXRpbmcgdGhlIG1vYmlsaXR5IGFuY2hvciAgKERNTSk/DQo+
ID4gPj4NCj4gPiA+PiBJIHJlbWVtYmVyIGl0IHNlZW0gdGhhdCBwZW9wbGUgYWdyZWVkIHRvIGRv
IHRoZSBhbmFseXNpcyB3b3JrIG9mIA0KRE1NDQo+ID4gPj4gYXMgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHN0ZXAgaW4g
QmVpamluZyBtZWV0aW5nPw0KPiA+ID4NCj4gPiA+IE15IHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcgaXMgdGhhdCB0
aGUgbmV3IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2lsbCBiZSANCmlubGluZQ0KPiA+IHdpdGgN
Cj4gPiA+IEp1bGllbidzIHByZXNlbnRhdGlvbiBoZSBoYWQgaW4gQmVpamluZyBtZXh0IGFkZGl0
aW9uYWwgc2Vzc2lvbiB3ZSANCmhhZA0KPiA+IG9uDQo+ID4gPiBkbW0NCj4gPiA+IGFuZCBleHBs
YWluIGhvdyBNSVB2NiBhcyBkZWZpbmVkIGN1cnJlbnRseSBjYW4gYmUgdXNlZCB0byBkaXN0cmli
dXRlDQo+IHRoZQ0KPiA+ID4gdHJhZmZpYw0KPiA+ID4gaW4gYW4gb3B0aW1hbCB3YXkuDQo+ID4g
Pg0KPiA+ID4gSSBzdWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgeW91IHRha2UgdGhlIGxlYWQgaW4gdGhpcyBlZmZvcnQu
DQo+ID4NCj4gPiA9PT4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IEkgdGhpbmsgRE1NIGJhcmJvZiBjb250cmlidXRvcnMg
aGF2ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGRvbmUgc29tZSB3b3JrIGluIHRoaXMNCj4gPiBhcmVhLiBTbyBpZiBwZW9w
bGUgYWdyZWUgSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIG9yZ2FuaXplIHdyaXRpbmcgdGhpcyBkcmFmdC4NCj4g
PiBBbnlvbmUgd2hvIGlzIGludGVyZXN0ZWQNCj4gPiB0byBqb2luIHRoZSBkZXNpZ24gdGVhbSBj
b3VsZCByZXBseSB0aGlzIG1haWwgdG8gbGV0IG1lIGtub3cuIHRoYW5rcy4NCj4gPg0KPiA+IEJl
c3QgcmVnYXJkcywNCj4gPiBEYXBlbmcgTGl1DQo+ID4NCj4gPiA+IFJlZ2FyZHMsDQo+ID4gPg0K
PiA+ID4gQmVoY2V0DQo+ID4gPg0KPiA+ID4NCj4gPiA+DQo+ID4gPg0KPiA+ID4NCj4gPiBfX19f
X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiA+IGRtbSBtYWls
aW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gPiBkbW1AaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gPiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWls
bWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2RtbQ0KPiANCj4gUXVlc3RvIG1lc3NhZ2dpbyBlIGkgc3VvaSBhbGxlZ2F0
aSBzb25vIGluZGlyaXp6YXRpIGVzY2x1c2l2YW1lbnRlIGFsbGUNCj4gcGVyc29uZSBpbmRpY2F0
ZS4gTGEgZGlmZnVzaW9uZSwgY29waWEgbyBxdWFsc2lhc2kgYWx0cmEgYXppb25lIA0KZGVyaXZh
bnRlDQo+IGRhbGxhIGNvbm9zY2VuemEgZGkgcXVlc3RlIGluZm9ybWF6aW9uaSBzb25vIHJpZ29y
b3NhbWVudGUgdmlldGF0ZS4NCj4gUXVhbG9yYSBhYmJpYXRlIHJpY2V2dXRvIHF1ZXN0byBkb2N1
bWVudG8gcGVyIGVycm9yZSBzaWV0ZSBjb3J0ZXNlbWVudGUNCj4gcHJlZ2F0aSBkaSBkYXJuZSBp
bW1lZGlhdGEgY29tdW5pY2F6aW9uZSBhbCBtaXR0ZW50ZSBlIGRpIHByb3Z2ZWRlcmUgDQphbGxh
DQo+IHN1YSBkaXN0cnV6aW9uZSwgR3JhemllLg0KPiANCj4gVGhpcyBlLW1haWwgYW5kIGFueSBh
dHRhY2htZW50cyBpcyBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgYW5kIG1heSBjb250YWluIA0KcHJpdmlsZWdlZA0K
PiBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbnRlbmRlZCBmb3IgdGhlIGFkZHJlc3NlZShzKSBvbmx5LiBEaXNzZW1p
bmF0aW9uLCBjb3B5aW5nLA0KPiBwcmludGluZyBvciB1c2UgYnkgYW55Ym9keSBlbHNlIGlzIHVu
YXV0aG9yaXNlZC4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBub3QgdGhlDQo+IGludGVuZGVkIHJlY2lwaWVudCwgcGxl
YXNlIGRlbGV0ZSB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGFueSBhdHRhY2htZW50cyBhbmQNCj4gYWR2aXNl
IHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgYnkgcmV0dXJuIGUtbWFpbCwgVGhhbmtzLg0KPiANCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19f
X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gZG1tIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0K
PiBkbW1AaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9k
bW0NCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpkbW0g
bWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpkbW1AaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4v
bGlzdGluZm8vZG1tDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
X19fX19fDQpNRVhUIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KTUVYVEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0
Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9tZXh0DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t
LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NClpURSBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBT
ZWN1cml0eSBOb3RpY2U6IFRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBjb250YWluZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBtYWlsIGlz
IHNvbGVseSBwcm9wZXJ0eSBvZiB0aGUgc2VuZGVyJ3Mgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uLiBUaGlzIG1haWwg
Y29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBpcyBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwuIFJlY2lwaWVudHMgbmFtZWQgYWJvdmUgYXJl
IG9ibGlnYXRlZCB0byBtYWludGFpbiBzZWNyZWN5IGFuZCBhcmUgbm90IHBlcm1pdHRlZCB0byBk
aXNjbG9zZSB0aGUgY29udGVudHMgb2YgdGhpcyBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIHRvIG90aGVycy4NClRo
aXMgZW1haWwgYW5kIGFueSBmaWxlcyB0cmFuc21pdHRlZCB3aXRoIGl0IGFyZSBjb25maWRlbnRp
YWwgYW5kIGludGVuZGVkIHNvbGVseSBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBvciBl
bnRpdHkgdG8gd2hvbSB0aGV5IGFyZSBhZGRyZXNzZWQuIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHRo
aXMgZW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYXRvciBvZiB0aGUgbWVz
c2FnZS4gQW55IHZpZXdzIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYXJlIHRob3NlIG9mIHRo
ZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIHNlbmRlci4NClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBzY2FubmVkIGZvciB2
aXJ1c2VzIGFuZCBTcGFtIGJ5IFpURSBBbnRpLVNwYW0gc3lzdGVtLg0K
--=_alternative 0022991F48257849_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--=_alternative 0022991F48257849_=--


From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com  Fri Mar  4 15:15:26 2011
Return-Path: <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 439513A696C for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri,  4 Mar 2011 15:15:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.388
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.211,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tflWJa1+z2Nl for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri,  4 Mar 2011 15:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm2.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm2.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DF28A3A6850 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri,  4 Mar 2011 15:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [98.139.91.70] by nm2.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2011 23:16:31 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.39] by tm10.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2011 23:16:31 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1039.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2011 23:16:31 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 122130.92334.bm@omp1039.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 53569 invoked by uid 60001); 4 Mar 2011 23:16:30 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1299280590; bh=0RYA2k90AWbLcfg6o+XZ197TvrsSkTaymG0po5wUtnA=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=3om/3MedeZFpVz73EGr4W9IxBTwxBgTWfYO1W4G+szNvW1OVuOBbrbRUV0rdZpV93KHGpzOhc87MDYdSx6MN3yAjqQo2cty/y3r4jX6+WiBvIEefo5G55kHccckrv60YBq1IhG4If/s1fVT28Sr6hh4Wf6LAPpzyPKi588Ng/BI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=1lDDZmk7OJ5Ykvex7tHrqI0xXBZ4bpZ6IvfSJ9U2I6NwXxTsA90BPCbanwuEyJ62wEKh8M23PsIXVFuD+cyqjw8ifnrBDIrkOfu9sITUz7H9KC8mzywrRZvAKbZ86tF4+G6E85fCCcCN4n532Riov/1xBMUqcFZWrUcKoRfR8Tg=;
Message-ID: <707925.53138.qm@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: y2bZRg8VM1kIHroo8hs_bx7GjF4LTYUF63Ul3Fs9cMWPTxl NzFNmsEYC1IrAwCJ453v6fzR7iqUXdSjq7bsNp5.uADiytr11gQCvBm1ry1U YUZy596qQ3LpnVKthBwgxGBm1rjq8kNSjmTbdHTz50ROfZgDQ6B1KnHtf3U2 piBoxTHNH.HMD2KgjiwMnWQjXoa3jFTw1p.DREl4P8DH99A.gRSZOsF9.VRk bU.5TWVa7KOmKGa0U5iMLa5Eh535zHJrEV92BNrHpPy2.4P4XJuvPr6BMuLo yXkIYUySiCk_pcZcUhg2F3Vp60pyY47nfAJS2Lw0nt2Wf26oIeMB8ZdcBmt3 .R4utrT0O7oAH1PHtWi2mzIvZFEBaB6CFd1KRL_tdQYyKxw5ccJmv6_x1QzD 6t9DB.bC2DA1p
Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:16:30 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.109.292656
References: <001301cbd9cb$eb33a550$3a097c0a@china.huawei.com> <39666EBCAA1E471BBB7FA20DB4E608C7@knucpl>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:16:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
To: Seok Joo Koh <sjkoh@knu.ac.kr>, Anthony Chan <anthonychan@huawei.com>, pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com, elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it, maxpassion@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <39666EBCAA1E471BBB7FA20DB4E608C7@knucpl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:15:26 -0000

Folks, I had just expressed my personal opinion.=0A=0AYou should probably w=
ait for the chairs announcement before forming a design =0Ateam.=0A=0ARegar=
ds,=0A=0ABehcet=0A> =0A=0A> Dapeng,=0A> =0A> I would also like to join the =
work for contribution.=0A> =0A> Many  thanks,=0A> =0A> ********************=
*****=0A> Seok Joo Koh=0A> sjkoh@knu.ac.kr=0A> http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/=
=0A> =0A> =0A> -----  Original Message ----- =0A> From: "Anthony Chan" <ant=
honychan@huawei.com>=0A> To:  <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>;  <elena.=
demaria@telecomitalia.it>;  =0A><maxpassion@gmail.com>; =0A>=0A> <sarikaya@=
ieee.org>=0A> Cc: <dmm@ietf.org>;  <mext@ietf.org>=0A> Sent: Friday, March =
04,  2011 2:53 AM=0A> Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for di=
stributed  mobility work=0A> =0A> =0A> Dapeng,=0A> I also like to contribut=
e.=0A> H Anthony  Chan=0A> =0A> -----Original Message-----=0A> From: dmm-bo=
unces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of=0A> pierrick.seit=
e@orange-ftgroup.com=0A> Sent:  Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:36 AM=0A> To: el=
ena.demaria@telecomitalia.it; maxpassion@gmail.com; sarikaya@ieee.org=0A> C=
c: dmm@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org=0A> Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT]  suggest chart=
er item for distributed mobility work=0A> =0A> Hi Dapeng,=0A> =0A> I'm  als=
o interesting in working on this item. Also agree, and happy, that=0A> you =
 lead the work.=0A> =0A> Pierrick=0A> > -----Message d'origine-----=0A> > D=
e : dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part  de=0A> >=
 Demaria Elena=0A> > Envoy=E9 : jeudi 3 mars 2011 11:51=0A> > =C0 :  'liu d=
apeng'; 'Behcet Sarikaya'=0A> > Cc : 'dmm@ietf.org'; 'mext@ietf.org'=0A> > =
Objet : Re: [dmm] [MEXT]  suggest charter item for distributed mobility=0A>=
 > work=0A> >=0A> > Hi  Dapeng,=0A> > I'd like to contribute to this work.=
=0A> >=0A> >  Elena=0A> >=0A> >=0A> > > -----Original Message-----=0A> > > =
From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf  Of=0A> =
> liu=0A> > > dapeng=0A> > > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011  4:17 AM=0A> > =
> To: Behcet Sarikaya=0A> > > Cc: dmm@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org=0A> > > Subje=
ct: Re: [dmm]  [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed mobility=0A> > >=
 work=0A> >  >=0A> > > Hi Behcet,=0A> > >=0A> > >=0A> > > 2011/2/19,  Behce=
t Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>:=0A> >  > > Hi Dapeng,=0A> > > >=0A> =
> > >=0A> > >  >=0A> > > >>=0A> > > >> Hello Julien,=0A> > >  >>=0A> > > >>=
 Thanks for the information. But my question is:  since the  charter is=0A>=
 > > >> extended to "work on  operational considerations on setting up  Mob=
ile=0A> > > >> IPv6  networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal =
way".=0A> > Does=0A> >  > >> it mean that the extended charter include   pr=
oblem/gap/scenario=0A> > > >> analysis of distributing the mobility  anchor=
  (DMM)?=0A> > > >>=0A> > > >> I remember it  seem that people agreed to do=
 the analysis work of  DMM=0A> > >  >> as the first step in Beijing meeting=
?=0A> > > >=0A> > >  > My understanding is that the new informational docum=
ent will be  inline=0A> > > with=0A> > > > Julien's presentation he had in =
 Beijing mext additional session we had=0A> > > on=0A> > > >  dmm=0A> > > >=
 and explain how MIPv6 as defined currently can be used to  distribute=0A> =
> the=0A> > > > traffic=0A> > > > in an optimal  way.=0A> > > >=0A> > > > I=
 suggest that you take the lead in  this effort.=0A> > >=0A> > > =3D=3D>=0A=
> > >=0A> > > I think  DMM barbof contributors have already done some work =
in this=0A> > > area.  So if people agree I would like to organize writing =
this draft.=0A> > >  Anyone who is interested=0A> > > to join the design te=
am could reply this  mail to let me know. thanks.=0A> > >=0A> > > Best rega=
rds,=0A> >  > Dapeng Liu=0A> > >=0A> > > > Regards,=0A> > >  >=0A> > > > Be=
hcet=0A> > > >=0A> > > >=0A> > >  >=0A> > > >=0A> > > >=0A> > >  __________=
_____________________________________=0A> > > dmm mailing  list=0A> > > dmm=
@ietf.org=0A> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm=0A> >=0A> > Que=
sto messaggio  e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle=0A> >=
 persone indicate.  La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante=
=0A> > dalla conoscenza  di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate.=
=0A> > Qualora abbiate  ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesem=
ente=0A> > pregati di darne  immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provv=
edere alla=0A> > sua  distruzione, Grazie.=0A> >=0A> > This e-mail and any =
attachments is  confidential and may contain privileged=0A> > information i=
ntended for the  addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying,=0A> > printing =
or use by anybody  else is unauthorised. If you are not the=0A> > intended =
recipient, please  delete this message and any attachments and=0A> > advise=
 the sender by return  e-mail, Thanks.=0A> >=0A> >  _______________________=
________________________=0A> > dmm mailing list=0A> > dmm@ietf.org=0A> > ht=
tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm=0A> _______________________________=
________________=0A> dmm  mailing list=0A> dmm@ietf.org=0A> https://www.iet=
f.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm=0A> =0A> _______________________________________=
________=0A> dmm  mailing list=0A> dmm@ietf.org=0A> https://www.ietf.org/ma=
ilman/listinfo/dmm =0A> =0A> =0A=0A=0A      

From charles.perkins@earthlink.net  Fri Mar  4 15:28:13 2011
Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FAC93A6A01; Fri,  4 Mar 2011 15:28:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lHvjtFM5EZ4o; Fri,  4 Mar 2011 15:28:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179A13A6921; Fri,  4 Mar 2011 15:28:12 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=sym2gLCwcYnwCNrlHOeFb2Z4z1mufQ6msrajd9gO2EtoSKMhUeqGGCy7PFjOfYU8; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [138.111.58.2] (helo=[172.17.96.31]) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1PveQy-0003eG-8I; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:29:20 -0500
Message-ID: <4D7175CE.4090502@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:29:18 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
References: <C95CE87E.D35B%sgundave@cisco.com> <4D388641.7060405@piuha.net><AANLkTimu4+VHtRmEHfFP--xQiW2KkoQ1JmHOonCUrSSi@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTinT1EEco1o+nyzad7k11dkzir8HtwMgVoNZxhQx@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTikjJ5Pkte2MbV4GOo3tutfr8ehKx7NDUi2keh4z@mail.gmail.com><339086.13026.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinTO-Xe=1hQvhKaxEyfBkjU=mWOA=tBuP7r1wyP@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinTO-Xe=1hQvhKaxEyfBkjU=mWOA=tBuP7r1wyP@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f528fe2346c2e906f719c739c5762e35957350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 138.111.58.2
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:28:13 -0000

Hello folks,

I'd also like to be involved with the effort.

I have two questions:

- Does route optimization have a role to play?
   It certainly can serve the purpose of distributing
   traffic optimally...

- What about a sort of "hierarchical PMIP"?

Regards,
Charlie P.



On 3/2/2011 7:17 PM, liu dapeng wrote:
> Hi Behcet,
>
>
> 2011/2/19, Behcet Sarikaya<behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>:
>> Hi Dapeng,
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hello Julien,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the information. But my question is: since the  charter is
>>> extended to "work on operational considerations on setting up  Mobile
>>> IPv6 networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way".  Does
>>> it mean that the extended charter include  problem/gap/scenario
>>> analysis of distributing the mobility anchor  (DMM)?
>>>
>>> I remember it seem that people agreed to do the analysis work of  DMM
>>> as the first step in Beijing meeting?
>>
>> My understanding is that the new informational document will be inline with
>> Julien's presentation he had in Beijing mext additional session we had on
>> dmm
>> and explain how MIPv6 as defined currently can be used to distribute the
>> traffic
>> in an optimal way.
>>
>> I suggest that you take the lead in this effort.
>
> ==>
>
> I think DMM barbof contributors have already done some work in this
> area. So if people agree I would like to organize writing this draft.
> Anyone who is interested
> to join the design team could reply this mail to let me know. thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Dapeng Liu
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From charliep@computer.org  Fri Mar  4 16:27:06 2011
Return-Path: <charliep@computer.org>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297543A6823; Fri,  4 Mar 2011 16:27:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hXYK6znTXanS; Fri,  4 Mar 2011 16:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146D03A68A9; Fri,  4 Mar 2011 16:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [138.111.58.2] (helo=[172.17.96.31]) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charliep@computer.org>) id 1PvfLw-0008B6-Up; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:28:13 -0500
Message-ID: <4D71839A.7090604@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:28:10 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep@computer.org>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
References: <C95CE87E.D35B%sgundave@cisco.com> <4D388641.7060405@piuha.net><AANLkTimu4+VHtRmEHfFP--xQiW2KkoQ1JmHOonCUrSSi@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTinT1EEco1o+nyzad7k11dkzir8HtwMgVoNZxhQx@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTikjJ5Pkte2MbV4GOo3tutfr8ehKx7NDUi2keh4z@mail.gmail.com><339086.13026.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinTO-Xe=1hQvhKaxEyfBkjU=mWOA=tBuP7r1wyP@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinTO-Xe=1hQvhKaxEyfBkjU=mWOA=tBuP7r1wyP@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f521f192a7520d81faeddd8750e5e247c94350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 138.111.58.2
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: charliep@computer.org
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 00:27:06 -0000

Hello folks,

I'd also like to be involved with the effort.

I have two questions:

- Does route optimization have a role to play?
   It certainly can serve the purpose of distributing
   traffic optimally...

- What about a sort of "hierarchical PMIP"?

Regards,
Charlie P.



On 3/2/2011 7:17 PM, liu dapeng wrote:
> Hi Behcet,
>
>
> 2011/2/19, Behcet Sarikaya<behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>:
>> Hi Dapeng,
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hello Julien,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the information. But my question is: since the  charter is
>>> extended to "work on operational considerations on setting up  Mobile
>>> IPv6 networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way".  Does
>>> it mean that the extended charter include  problem/gap/scenario
>>> analysis of distributing the mobility anchor  (DMM)?
>>>
>>> I remember it seem that people agreed to do the analysis work of  DMM
>>> as the first step in Beijing meeting?
>>
>> My understanding is that the new informational document will be inline with
>> Julien's presentation he had in Beijing mext additional session we had on
>> dmm
>> and explain how MIPv6 as defined currently can be used to distribute the
>> traffic
>> in an optimal way.
>>
>> I suggest that you take the lead in this effort.
>
> ==>
>
> I think DMM barbof contributors have already done some work in this
> area. So if people agree I would like to organize writing this draft.
> Anyone who is interested
> to join the design team could reply this mail to let me know. thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Dapeng Liu
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From marcelo@it.uc3m.es  Sat Mar  5 01:28:22 2011
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278523A6A5E; Sat,  5 Mar 2011 01:28:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.524
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vR+DwgDEIDDq; Sat,  5 Mar 2011 01:28:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258BF3A6A5D; Sat,  5 Mar 2011 01:28:12 -0800 (PST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (3.31.18.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.18.31.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE79879055; Sat,  5 Mar 2011 10:29:19 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D72026F.3060102@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:29:19 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110221 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
References: <001301cbd9cb$eb33a550$3a097c0a@china.huawei.com>	<39666EBCAA1E471BBB7FA20DB4E608C7@knucpl> <707925.53138.qm@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <707925.53138.qm@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-17992.006
Cc: maxpassion@gmail.com, dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org, Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>, Anthony Chan <anthonychan@huawei.com>, Seok Joo Koh <sjkoh@knu.ac.kr>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 09:28:22 -0000

Just to clarify:
Design teams are defined in RFC 2418 as:

"6.5. Design teams

    It is often useful, and perhaps inevitable, for a sub-group of a
    working group to develop a proposal to solve a particular problem.
    Such a sub-group is called a design team.  In order for a design team
    to remain small and agile, it is acceptable to have closed membership
    and private meetings.  Design teams may range from an informal chat
    between people in a hallway to a formal set of expert volunteers that
    the WG chair or AD appoints to attack a controversial problem.  The
    output of a design team is always subject to approval, rejection or
    modification by the WG as a whole."


This design team that Dapeng is forming falls AFAIK into the first 
category i.e. an informal chat between people and it has NOT been 
appointed by the chairs.
As such, they can form any design team that they feel like, there is 
absolutely no problem with that.

Of course, as any design team, the output needs to be presented to the 
WG and it is subject to the WG acceptance, as any other piece of work.

I hope this clarifies this.

Regards, marcelo


El 05/03/11 0:16, Behcet Sarikaya escribió:
> Folks, I had just expressed my personal opinion.
>
> You should probably wait for the chairs announcement before forming a design
> team.
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet
>> Dapeng,
>>
>> I would also like to join the work for contribution.
>>
>> Many  thanks,
>>
>> *************************
>> Seok Joo Koh
>> sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
>> http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/
>>
>>
>> -----  Original Message -----
>> From: "Anthony Chan"<anthonychan@huawei.com>
>> To:<pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>;<elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it>;
>> <maxpassion@gmail.com>;
>>
>> <sarikaya@ieee.org>
>> Cc:<dmm@ietf.org>;<mext@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Friday, March 04,  2011 2:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed  mobility work
>>
>>
>> Dapeng,
>> I also like to contribute.
>> H Anthony  Chan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
>> Sent:  Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:36 AM
>> To: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it; maxpassion@gmail.com; sarikaya@ieee.org
>> Cc: dmm@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT]  suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
>>
>> Hi Dapeng,
>>
>> I'm  also interesting in working on this item. Also agree, and happy, that
>> you  lead the work.
>>
>> Pierrick
>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>> De : dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part  de
>>> Demaria Elena
>>> Envoyé : jeudi 3 mars 2011 11:51
>>> À :  'liu dapeng'; 'Behcet Sarikaya'
>>> Cc : 'dmm@ietf.org'; 'mext@ietf.org'
>>> Objet : Re: [dmm] [MEXT]  suggest charter item for distributed mobility
>>> work
>>>
>>> Hi  Dapeng,
>>> I'd like to contribute to this work.
>>>
>>>   Elena
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf  Of
>>> liu
>>>> dapeng
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011  4:17 AM
>>>> To: Behcet Sarikaya
>>>> Cc: dmm@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [dmm]  [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed mobility
>>>> work
>>>   >
>>>> Hi Behcet,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2011/2/19,  Behcet Sarikaya<behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>:
>>>   >  >  Hi Dapeng,
>>>>>
>>>>   >
>>>>>> Hello Julien,
>>>>   >>
>>>>>> Thanks for the information. But my question is:  since the  charter is
>>>>>> extended to "work on  operational considerations on setting up  Mobile
>>>>>> IPv6  networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way".
>>> Does
>>>   >  >>  it mean that the extended charter include   problem/gap/scenario
>>>>>> analysis of distributing the mobility  anchor  (DMM)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember it  seem that people agreed to do the analysis work of  DMM
>>>>   >>  as the first step in Beijing meeting?
>>>>   >  My understanding is that the new informational document will be  inline
>>>> with
>>>>> Julien's presentation he had in  Beijing mext additional session we had
>>>> on
>>>>>   dmm
>>>>> and explain how MIPv6 as defined currently can be used to  distribute
>>> the
>>>>> traffic
>>>>> in an optimal  way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that you take the lead in  this effort.
>>>> ==>
>>>>
>>>> I think  DMM barbof contributors have already done some work in this
>>>> area.  So if people agree I would like to organize writing this draft.
>>>>   Anyone who is interested
>>>> to join the design team could reply this  mail to let me know. thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>   >  Dapeng Liu
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>   >
>>>>> Behcet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>   >
>>>>>
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>> dmm mailing  list
>>>> dmm@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>> Questo messaggio  e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle
>>> persone indicate.  La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante
>>> dalla conoscenza  di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate.
>>> Qualora abbiate  ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente
>>> pregati di darne  immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla
>>> sua  distruzione, Grazie.
>>>
>>> This e-mail and any attachments is  confidential and may contain privileged
>>> information intended for the  addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying,
>>> printing or use by anybody  else is unauthorised. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient, please  delete this message and any attachments and
>>> advise the sender by return  e-mail, Thanks.
>>>
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>> dmm mailing list
>>> dmm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm  mailing list
>> dmm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm  mailing list
>> dmm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From cjbc@it.uc3m.es  Mon Mar  7 10:32:37 2011
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC7D3A67DA; Mon,  7 Mar 2011 10:32:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.568
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131,  BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ke-1oqLQYLf1; Mon,  7 Mar 2011 10:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F1D3A681A; Mon,  7 Mar 2011 10:32:32 -0800 (PST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [163.117.139.72] (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7170F98DC59; Mon,  7 Mar 2011 19:33:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-A4ANkr1zoVmpg3zZQpoR"
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 19:35:14 +0100
Message-ID: <1299522914.4239.38.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-17998.000
Cc: Fabio Giust <fabio.giust@imdea.org>, Antonio de la Oliva Delgado <aoliva@it.uc3m.es>
Subject: [MEXT] Draft related to DMM
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:32:37 -0000

--=-A4ANkr1zoVmpg3zZQpoR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi folks,

(apologies for the cross-posting)

We have just submitted a draft related to DMM. The draft describes a
possible way of achieving a distributed mobility behavior with Client
Mobile IP, based on Mobile IPv6 and the use of Cryptographic Generated
Addresses.

The draft is already on the I-D repository:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bernardos-mext-dmm-cmip-00.txt

Comments, as usual, are welcome!

Carlos

--=20
Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

--=-A4ANkr1zoVmpg3zZQpoR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk11JWIACgkQNdy6TdFwT2e+sQCg5UQEZ1YBX26ZnWcksfVDywq8
JnkAn3KcFuLVB+HsY2NqcuJDCnzPwIVn
=/Cke
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-A4ANkr1zoVmpg3zZQpoR--


From mccap@petoni.org  Mon Mar  7 14:30:32 2011
Return-Path: <mccap@petoni.org>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA0828C121; Mon,  7 Mar 2011 14:30:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.934
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043,  BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qy4ov44PxdsG; Mon,  7 Mar 2011 14:30:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F9528C0F0; Mon,  7 Mar 2011 14:30:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wyb42 with SMTP id 42so5118846wyb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:31:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.59.134 with SMTP id l6mr3966802wbh.34.1299537104415; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:31:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.137.17 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:31:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [184.216.124.232]
In-Reply-To: <1299522914.4239.38.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
References: <1299522914.4239.38.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 16:31:44 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTimxj_bM4vP_chT7gXy6HFow1u6R1_AV5ErCHRxU@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pete McCann <mccap@petoni.org>
To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Antonio de la Oliva Delgado <aoliva@it.uc3m.es>, dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] Draft related to DMM
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 22:30:33 -0000

Hi, Carlos,

2011/3/7 Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>:
>
> We have just submitted a draft related to DMM. The draft describes a
> possible way of achieving a distributed mobility behavior with Client
> Mobile IP, based on Mobile IPv6 and the use of Cryptographic Generated
> Addresses.
>
> The draft is already on the I-D repository:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bernardos-mext-dmm-cmip-00.txt

I read through your draft, and I have a couple of questions.

First, it seems that you require a BU sent to the DAR right after
SLAAC.  Is this the case?  Why do we need such a BU?

Second, how is the PHKT protected when it transits from the
DAR to the MN?  Did you consider doing a simple Diffie-Hellman
exchange to derive a PHKT for later use by the MN?  That would
neatly avoid having to send the PHKT in the clear or to protect
it with some sort of encryption wrapper.

Third, how do you expect the CGA configuration to interact with
the access network authentication that will be performed before
the MN is allowed to attach to the first DAR?  Do you see any
opportunities for synergy here, if say, EAP was used to authenticate
and derive an MSK?

-Pete

From maxpassion@gmail.com  Tue Mar  8 00:54:35 2011
Return-Path: <maxpassion@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69DD3A6821; Tue,  8 Mar 2011 00:54:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qsfhwiA7ibyS; Tue,  8 Mar 2011 00:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051853A67F5; Tue,  8 Mar 2011 00:54:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so5879112iwl.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:55:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6sQzCNRBBO5UT73Ec6QJNzk/MgH4haPzHdh7PhiIhPU=; b=BKdVspiGxfcJxEDwOugTNYdGlr3vObt5k636QVWMuClkjIorFEu0IpG23Ao79WlcLl eJEu/BzGEAlOIrZwmi+8qrrBiyRDPgkurGBIY04n5nlyq9H4GfXNOZkO3cwo8vqwDERt 6CsEAFKVMkR93CIYwDpujve4Aq5PEEXpKDY/I=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QUG5ehItAZvkBBXDrJfm8dVAUj+5Q50a7c+srSVfFrBhoBNtROOEiA6WfEbc2e/6l9 Vq8v9XtR+Os1mYjFB8EezOSQG1tkg31zt181kU0ii3JiKYaw3rYtkBxijN0kBhgvs1OU gNwJJvQcGBsPwFy4hlgy/NGL2V0PgfaOwlLfQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.43.56.136 with SMTP id wc8mr4120375icb.160.1299574548221; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:55:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.213.67 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 00:55:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D72026F.3060102@it.uc3m.es>
References: <001301cbd9cb$eb33a550$3a097c0a@china.huawei.com> <39666EBCAA1E471BBB7FA20DB4E608C7@knucpl> <707925.53138.qm@web111406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4D72026F.3060102@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:55:48 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTim6mx9_4TOmVQozo38sP6-S=jdQRNA3VBpFz_e0@mail.gmail.com>
From: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org, Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>, Anthony Chan <anthonychan@huawei.com>, Seok Joo Koh <sjkoh@knu.ac.kr>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:54:35 -0000

Hi Marcelo,

Thanks a lot for the clarification.

Best regards,
Dapeng Liu

2011/3/5, marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>:
> Just to clarify:
> Design teams are defined in RFC 2418 as:
>
> "6.5. Design teams
>
>     It is often useful, and perhaps inevitable, for a sub-group of a
>     working group to develop a proposal to solve a particular problem.
>     Such a sub-group is called a design team.  In order for a design team
>     to remain small and agile, it is acceptable to have closed membership
>     and private meetings.  Design teams may range from an informal chat
>     between people in a hallway to a formal set of expert volunteers that
>     the WG chair or AD appoints to attack a controversial problem.  The
>     output of a design team is always subject to approval, rejection or
>     modification by the WG as a whole."
>
>
> This design team that Dapeng is forming falls AFAIK into the first
> category i.e. an informal chat between people and it has NOT been
> appointed by the chairs.
> As such, they can form any design team that they feel like, there is
> absolutely no problem with that.
>
> Of course, as any design team, the output needs to be presented to the
> WG and it is subject to the WG acceptance, as any other piece of work.
>
> I hope this clarifies this.
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>
> El 05/03/11 0:16, Behcet Sarikaya escribi=F3:
>> Folks, I had just expressed my personal opinion.
>>
>> You should probably wait for the chairs announcement before forming a
>> design
>> team.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>> Dapeng,
>>>
>>> I would also like to join the work for contribution.
>>>
>>> Many  thanks,
>>>
>>> *************************
>>> Seok Joo Koh
>>> sjkoh@knu.ac.kr
>>> http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/
>>>
>>>
>>> -----  Original Message -----
>>> From: "Anthony Chan"<anthonychan@huawei.com>
>>> To:<pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>;<elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it>=
;
>>> <maxpassion@gmail.com>;
>>>
>>> <sarikaya@ieee.org>
>>> Cc:<dmm@ietf.org>;<mext@ietf.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, March 04,  2011 2:53 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed  mobilit=
y
>>> work
>>>
>>>
>>> Dapeng,
>>> I also like to contribute.
>>> H Anthony  Chan
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
>>> Sent:  Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:36 AM
>>> To: elena.demaria@telecomitalia.it; maxpassion@gmail.com;
>>> sarikaya@ieee.org
>>> Cc: dmm@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [dmm] [MEXT]  suggest charter item for distributed mobilit=
y
>>> work
>>>
>>> Hi Dapeng,
>>>
>>> I'm  also interesting in working on this item. Also agree, and happy,
>>> that
>>> you  lead the work.
>>>
>>> Pierrick
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] De la part  de
>>>> Demaria Elena
>>>> Envoy=E9 : jeudi 3 mars 2011 11:51
>>>> =C0 :  'liu dapeng'; 'Behcet Sarikaya'
>>>> Cc : 'dmm@ietf.org'; 'mext@ietf.org'
>>>> Objet : Re: [dmm] [MEXT]  suggest charter item for distributed mobilit=
y
>>>> work
>>>>
>>>> Hi  Dapeng,
>>>> I'd like to contribute to this work.
>>>>
>>>>   Elena
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf  O=
f
>>>> liu
>>>>> dapeng
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011  4:17 AM
>>>>> To: Behcet Sarikaya
>>>>> Cc: dmm@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [dmm]  [MEXT] suggest charter item for distributed
>>>>> mobility
>>>>> work
>>>>   >
>>>>> Hi Behcet,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/2/19,  Behcet Sarikaya<behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>:
>>>>   >  >  Hi Dapeng,
>>>>>>
>>>>>   >
>>>>>>> Hello Julien,
>>>>>   >>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the information. But my question is:  since the  charter
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> extended to "work on  operational considerations on setting up
>>>>>>> Mobile
>>>>>>> IPv6  networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way".
>>>> Does
>>>>   >  >>  it mean that the extended charter include
>>>> problem/gap/scenario
>>>>>>> analysis of distributing the mobility  anchor  (DMM)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I remember it  seem that people agreed to do the analysis work of
>>>>>>> DMM
>>>>>   >>  as the first step in Beijing meeting?
>>>>>   >  My understanding is that the new informational document will be
>>>>> inline
>>>>> with
>>>>>> Julien's presentation he had in  Beijing mext additional session we
>>>>>> had
>>>>> on
>>>>>>   dmm
>>>>>> and explain how MIPv6 as defined currently can be used to  distribut=
e
>>>> the
>>>>>> traffic
>>>>>> in an optimal  way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest that you take the lead in  this effort.
>>>>> =3D=3D>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think  DMM barbof contributors have already done some work in this
>>>>> area.  So if people agree I would like to organize writing this draft=
.
>>>>>   Anyone who is interested
>>>>> to join the design team could reply this  mail to let me know. thanks=
.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>   >  Dapeng Liu
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>   >
>>>>>> Behcet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>   >
>>>>>>
>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>> dmm mailing  list
>>>>> dmm@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>> Questo messaggio  e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente al=
le
>>>> persone indicate.  La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione
>>>> derivante
>>>> dalla conoscenza  di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate.
>>>> Qualora abbiate  ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemen=
te
>>>> pregati di darne  immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere
>>>> alla
>>>> sua  distruzione, Grazie.
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail and any attachments is  confidential and may contain
>>>> privileged
>>>> information intended for the  addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copyin=
g,
>>>> printing or use by anybody  else is unauthorised. If you are not the
>>>> intended recipient, please  delete this message and any attachments an=
d
>>>> advise the sender by return  e-mail, Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>> dmm@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dmm  mailing list
>>> dmm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dmm  mailing list
>>> dmm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
>

From maxpassion@gmail.com  Tue Mar  8 01:11:39 2011
Return-Path: <maxpassion@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC243A6813; Tue,  8 Mar 2011 01:11:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6eiMuiQn7+x9; Tue,  8 Mar 2011 01:11:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9933A6778; Tue,  8 Mar 2011 01:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so5892762iwl.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:12:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jY4Fq8ou/VCkQG96B5KBYKxh/SUGZtzJ8hafuAXpGlk=; b=Ovj31o/+xiNDINDh0n4PwFjkA933+GtI7o+2oUfDooK+fD8/xLT+28jib5WU/bDzSP jrv4nv0BcEAdbrzJ9L59YBQIXIbbLozUrsI20gbmaQ3WyM3kwpXD7Fkqv3+E8DdelyFx C+2gBdSf+lkqPDNTRAahjjku4GvvRovMRMRn8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Txv2OONVO09r8aJcj4XM/4MXBfno1mjhPeb5FFFbDHergSKvv12SQRr0uEHxZyoMmI IO5k+igRw4mqaY5BwTPFzwiSi2/dK4REWtOCzhBp2x4drGHIrRilSIB01A9Fbk36HkFD DmBuWXSfTZ1ycG8WRKyVWBVgzmScIlwjTXiw4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.146.70 with SMTP id i6mr5613671icv.361.1299575568126; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:12:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.213.67 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 01:12:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D71839A.7090604@computer.org>
References: <C95CE87E.D35B%sgundave@cisco.com> <4D388641.7060405@piuha.net> <AANLkTimu4+VHtRmEHfFP--xQiW2KkoQ1JmHOonCUrSSi@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinT1EEco1o+nyzad7k11dkzir8HtwMgVoNZxhQx@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikjJ5Pkte2MbV4GOo3tutfr8ehKx7NDUi2keh4z@mail.gmail.com> <339086.13026.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <AANLkTinTO-Xe=1hQvhKaxEyfBkjU=mWOA=tBuP7r1wyP@mail.gmail.com> <4D71839A.7090604@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:12:48 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikneniiNEUyPOLT3e5dajVm0quo+-7gm4v8t3=O@mail.gmail.com>
From: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
To: charliep@computer.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] suggest charter item for distributed mobility work
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 09:11:39 -0000

Hi Charlie,

My understanding is that the socpe of DMM work item in MEXT should be
limited to no protocol extensions. Let's continue this discussion in
the DT mail list.

Best regards,
Dapeng Liu

2011/3/5, Charles E. Perkins <charliep@computer.org>:
> Hello folks,
>
> I'd also like to be involved with the effort.
>
> I have two questions:
>
> - Does route optimization have a role to play?
>    It certainly can serve the purpose of distributing
>    traffic optimally...

> - What about a sort of "hierarchical PMIP"?
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
>
> On 3/2/2011 7:17 PM, liu dapeng wrote:
>> Hi Behcet,
>>
>>
>> 2011/2/19, Behcet Sarikaya<behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>:
>>> Hi Dapeng,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Julien,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the information. But my question is: since the  charter is
>>>> extended to "work on operational considerations on setting up  Mobile
>>>> IPv6 networks so that traffic is distributed in an optimal way".  Does
>>>> it mean that the extended charter include  problem/gap/scenario
>>>> analysis of distributing the mobility anchor  (DMM)?
>>>>
>>>> I remember it seem that people agreed to do the analysis work of  DMM
>>>> as the first step in Beijing meeting?
>>>
>>> My understanding is that the new informational document will be inline
>>> with
>>> Julien's presentation he had in Beijing mext additional session we had on
>>> dmm
>>> and explain how MIPv6 as defined currently can be used to distribute the
>>> traffic
>>> in an optimal way.
>>>
>>> I suggest that you take the lead in this effort.
>>
>> ==>
>>
>> I think DMM barbof contributors have already done some work in this
>> area. So if people agree I would like to organize writing this draft.
>> Anyone who is interested
>> to join the design team could reply this mail to let me know. thanks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Dapeng Liu
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Behcet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
>

From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com  Tue Mar  8 07:27:47 2011
Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4132D3A67A8 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue,  8 Mar 2011 07:27:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.003
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.596, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Alpexf2ajY0S for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue,  8 Mar 2011 07:27:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C633A63CB for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue,  8 Mar 2011 07:27:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p28FSwB6012183 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:28:59 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:28:53 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.61) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:28:52 +0100
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.5.127]) by 008-AM1MMR1-006.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.61]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.002; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:28:52 +0100
From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
To: <mext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Draft on DMM
Thread-Index: AQHL3aWHdcznOQCGykW+F1PZt+4kmg==
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:28:52 +0000
Message-ID: <C99BA752.11A4F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115
x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.33]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <87CA012BAE9938409D394C3D0065AFBE@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2011 15:28:53.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[88229060:01CBDDA5]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: [MEXT] Draft on DMM
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:27:47 -0000

Folks,

We have submitted a draft on distributed mobility. Please see:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-patil-mext-dmm-approaches-00.txt
Title: Approaches to Distributed mobility management using Mobile IPv6 and
its extensions

-Raj


From marcelo@it.uc3m.es  Wed Mar  9 08:31:03 2011
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D073A683E for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Mar 2011 08:31:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.549
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AJQ4K+48a59E for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Mar 2011 08:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3FF3A67D7 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Mar 2011 08:31:02 -0800 (PST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (3.31.18.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.18.31.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330A96CDEAD for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Mar 2011 17:32:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D77AB90.5080006@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:32:16 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18002.000
Subject: [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:31:03 -0000

Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
please note that we are meeting on friday.



From cjbc@it.uc3m.es  Wed Mar  9 08:59:46 2011
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068503A6A64; Wed,  9 Mar 2011 08:59:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.575
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124,  BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9uT4VRZvkD-W; Wed,  9 Mar 2011 08:59:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B66D3A6A5F; Wed,  9 Mar 2011 08:59:44 -0800 (PST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [163.117.139.72] (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E343BF349F; Wed,  9 Mar 2011 18:00:55 +0100 (CET)
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: Pete McCann <mccap@petoni.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimxj_bM4vP_chT7gXy6HFow1u6R1_AV5ErCHRxU@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1299522914.4239.38.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <AANLkTimxj_bM4vP_chT7gXy6HFow1u6R1_AV5ErCHRxU@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-+h0RyKP4lIjeArYOCbB6"
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:02:26 +0100
Message-ID: <1299690146.2781.37.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18002.000
Cc: Antonio de la Oliva Delgado <aoliva@it.uc3m.es>, dmm@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [dmm] Draft related to DMM
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:59:46 -0000

--=-+h0RyKP4lIjeArYOCbB6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the feedback

On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 16:31 -0600, Pete McCann wrote:
> Hi, Carlos,
>=20
> 2011/3/7 Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>:
> >
> > We have just submitted a draft related to DMM. The draft describes a
> > possible way of achieving a distributed mobility behavior with Client
> > Mobile IP, based on Mobile IPv6 and the use of Cryptographic Generated
> > Addresses.
> >
> > The draft is already on the I-D repository:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bernardos-mext-dmm-cmip-00.txt
>=20
> I read through your draft, and I have a couple of questions.
>=20
> First, it seems that you require a BU sent to the DAR right after
> SLAAC.  Is this the case?  Why do we need such a BU?

The BU is only sent if the MN wants to keep the reachability and session
continuity of an IPv6 address that was configured (and therefore is
anchored) at a previous DAR. In this case, the BU is sent to that
previous DAR, using as CoA the IPv6 address that has just configured
from the current DAR.

>=20
> Second, how is the PHKT protected when it transits from the
> DAR to the MN?  Did you consider doing a simple Diffie-Hellman
> exchange to derive a PHKT for later use by the MN?  That would
> neatly avoid having to send the PHKT in the clear or to protect
> it with some sort of encryption wrapper.

We rely on the mechanisms described in
draft-laganier-mext-cga-01/RFC4866 for that (I don't remember the
details). I guess using D-H could also be a good option to derive the
token.

>=20
> Third, how do you expect the CGA configuration to interact with
> the access network authentication that will be performed before
> the MN is allowed to attach to the first DAR?  Do you see any
> opportunities for synergy here, if say, EAP was used to authenticate
> and derive an MSK?

We haven't gone to that level of detail yet, to be honest. Interactions
with access network authentication and BU authorization issues are
definitely things that need to be further analyzed.

Thanks!

Carlos

>=20
> -Pete

--=20
Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

--=-+h0RyKP4lIjeArYOCbB6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk13sqIACgkQNdy6TdFwT2f36QCgjSTJa5wbw2ACxyB9b/snb1FD
RX4AoMUsS03dnW5UhY836dWTXXLbOlg5
=fHrA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-+h0RyKP4lIjeArYOCbB6--


From marcelo@it.uc3m.es  Fri Mar 11 11:42:06 2011
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1733A6B41 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:42:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.566
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XrYr2fSd1DUK for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:42:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619C73A6A36 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:42:04 -0800 (PST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (50.31.18.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.18.31.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF65274DE43 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:43:15 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D7A7B53.5060604@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:43:15 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18006.000
Subject: [MEXT] draft version of the agenda
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:42:06 -0000

find it in

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt

Regards, marcelo


From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org  Fri Mar 11 16:00:02 2011
Return-Path: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8893A69F1; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:00:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.574
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0W6tdGBn4lNT; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:00:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A0C3A6A25; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:00:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12
Message-ID: <20110312000001.8564.99335.idtracker@localhost>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:00:01 -0800
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: [MEXT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:00:03 -0000

--NextPart

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           : Mobility Support in IPv6
	Author(s)       : C. Perkins, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt
	Pages           : 177
	Date            : 2011-03-11

This document specifies Mobile IPv6, a protocol which allows nodes to
remain reachable while moving around in the IPv6 Internet.  Each
mobile node is always identified by its home address, regardless of
its current point of attachment to the Internet.  While situated away
from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of
address, which provides information about the mobile node's current
location.  IPv6 packets addressed to a mobile node's home address are
transparently routed to its care-of address.  The protocol enables
IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a mobile node's home address with
its care-of address, and to then send any packets destined for the
mobile node directly to it at this care-of address.  To support this
operation, Mobile IPv6 defines a new IPv6 protocol and a new
destination option.  All IPv6 nodes, whether mobile or stationary,
can communicate with mobile nodes.  This document obsoletes RFC 3775.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.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.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2011-03-11154852.I-D@ietf.org>


--NextPart--

From julien.ietf@gmail.com  Fri Mar 11 16:33:29 2011
Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A183A67B2 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:33:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.257
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.342,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MYU724IR2a-x for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1156C3A672F for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:33:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so1659105fxm.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:34:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=a/+1lgl3VjZYHg7OyW/GEHLyvY6EJaxQ/VWYxN2KzsA=; b=iWAIxz+xjoteMEBSSe7Ls72OE8GLO8T1UbSxOhEAXCFDBE7frDp2AC+kIbeTXLYnO7 ZRPKdYnsheaNZrxdmLTe7m3bfpUpQrHx/fVlBbQm5Jc5XFj3w8+Fvg7T7JkmrDYABoYl Qank/c2rM9ppgiFgeoF2PfC2uRL9cnVVovT4Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=nXgczRddtNXuOIExqgqgDR/YsfEch/4+7bBtcnuWgIMMvB6uXu6He+tifEc1LlJ1f3 5oi9OKWYxzM1N+pNuE42gq0GgnpBg5xYvYrA2I4PPH6jByEbPpzbFaHJnkb9ZTZr0Msh AB5SXMs5+a+hK79a5Z4kzA3vdCOsMS+3ThWJY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.160.80 with SMTP id m16mr6258740fax.72.1299890086925; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.93.138 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:34:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20110312000001.8564.99335.idtracker@localhost>
References: <20110312000001.8564.99335.idtracker@localhost>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:34:46 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinC6qZbQdSX45j1FY5K-boWCMk2EmxM496tcOE8@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: mext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [MEXT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:33:29 -0000

Folks,

This will be the last revision of the rfc3775bis. It resolves the last
discuss held by Tim Polk, and thus it will move towards the RFC Editor
for publication. Thanks again to Charlie for volunteering to serve as
an editor of our most important document!

--julien

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM,  <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct=
ories.
> This draft is a work item of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Gro=
up of the IETF.
>
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : Mobility Support in IPv6
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : C. Perkins, et al.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.tx=
t
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 177
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2011-03-11
>
> This document specifies Mobile IPv6, a protocol which allows nodes to
> remain reachable while moving around in the IPv6 Internet. =A0Each
> mobile node is always identified by its home address, regardless of
> its current point of attachment to the Internet. =A0While situated away
> from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of
> address, which provides information about the mobile node's current
> location. =A0IPv6 packets addressed to a mobile node's home address are
> transparently routed to its care-of address. =A0The protocol enables
> IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a mobile node's home address with
> its care-of address, and to then send any packets destined for the
> mobile node directly to it at this care-of address. =A0To support this
> operation, Mobile IPv6 defines a new IPv6 protocol and a new
> destination option. =A0All IPv6 nodes, whether mobile or stationary,
> can communicate with mobile nodes. =A0This document obsoletes RFC 3775.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
>

From charles.perkins@earthlink.net  Fri Mar 11 16:43:14 2011
Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67CCB3A6A7C for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:43:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3fvFmP6snZNZ for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:43:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02D03A672F for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:43:12 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=ZCrzTVw2FkpAftr0g7goY/wXBgMcqVb3mpZ7y/XGwFfth2Z7qK0Xai5v1/rjg6hY; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [138.111.58.2] (helo=[172.17.52.91]) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>) id 1PyCwa-0001ae-8W; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:44:32 -0500
Message-ID: <4D7AC1CE.9040105@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:43:58 -0800
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Organization: Wichorus Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <20110312000001.8564.99335.idtracker@localhost> <AANLkTinC6qZbQdSX45j1FY5K-boWCMk2EmxM496tcOE8@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinC6qZbQdSX45j1FY5K-boWCMk2EmxM496tcOE8@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52790d5248c713991290ec15df21bc1c81350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 138.111.58.2
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 00:43:14 -0000

Hello Julien,

You're welcome.  It's been more than a dozen
years since the start of RFC 3775, and quite
an experience.  I remember when we were pretty
sure that IPv6 would be widely available
by year 2000 or so, and we'd all have quite
heterogeneous access to converged mobile/fixed
voice/data networks.  I guess something went
wrong along the way.

Regards,
Charlie P.



On 3/11/2011 4:34 PM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This will be the last revision of the rfc3775bis. It resolves the last
> discuss held by Tim Polk, and thus it will move towards the RFC Editor
> for publication. Thanks again to Charlie for volunteering to serve as
> an editor of our most important document!
>
> --julien
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM,<Internet-Drafts@ietf.org>  wrote:
>> 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           : Mobility Support in IPv6
>>         Author(s)       : C. Perkins, et al.
>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt
>>         Pages           : 177
>>         Date            : 2011-03-11
>>
>> This document specifies Mobile IPv6, a protocol which allows nodes to
>> remain reachable while moving around in the IPv6 Internet.  Each
>> mobile node is always identified by its home address, regardless of
>> its current point of attachment to the Internet.  While situated away
>> from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of
>> address, which provides information about the mobile node's current
>> location.  IPv6 packets addressed to a mobile node's home address are
>> transparently routed to its care-of address.  The protocol enables
>> IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a mobile node's home address with
>> its care-of address, and to then send any packets destined for the
>> mobile node directly to it at this care-of address.  To support this
>> operation, Mobile IPv6 defines a new IPv6 protocol and a new
>> destination option.  All IPv6 nodes, whether mobile or stationary,
>> can communicate with mobile nodes.  This document obsoletes RFC 3775.
>>
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.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.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>>
>


From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org  Sat Mar 12 09:00:11 2011
Return-Path: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07183A683C; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:00:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.563
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WCjrGmeFZqb7; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819E53A67F8; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:00:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12
Message-ID: <20110312170002.13438.21432.idtracker@localhost>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:00:02 -0800
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: [MEXT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:00:12 -0000

--NextPart

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           : Transport Layer Security-based Mobile IPv6 Security Framework for Mobile Node to Home Agent Communication
	Author(s)       : J. Korhonen, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-00.txt
	Pages           : 37
	Date            : 2011-03-12

RFC 3775 Mobile IPv6 signaling between the mobile node and home agent
is secured using IPsec.  The security association between a mobile
node and the home agent is established using IKEv1 or IKEv2.  The
security model specified for Mobile IPv6, which relies on IKE/IPsec,
requires interaction between the Mobile IPv6 protocol part of the IP
stack and the IKE/IPsec part of the IP stack.  The IPsec/IKEv2 based
security architectures makes implementation and deployment of the
protocol infeasible for numerous reasons.  This document updates RFC
3775 and proposes an alternate security framework, which relies on
Transport Layer Security for establishing keying material and other
bootstrapping parameters required to protect Mobile IPv6 signaling
and data traffic between the mobile node and home agent.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-00.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.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-00.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2011-03-12085031.I-D@ietf.org>


--NextPart--

From Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com  Mon Mar 14 10:56:18 2011
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E91823A6E4D for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.419
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PCtRvJWgl4b4 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF8F3A6E46 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p2EHvY6K006746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p2EHvXtB029859; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-06.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-06.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.110]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p2EHvXVL029854 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.97]) by XCH-NWHT-06.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.110]) with mapi; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:57:33 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, "julien.ietf@gmail.com" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:57:32 -0700
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
Thread-Index: Acved6zKVKr4jJqSRfyzr1aOXtHvLgAGVLigAPfp4XA=
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:56:19 -0000

Hi Marcelo (and Julien),

In January, I posted several messages on a new approach
to mobility management known as IRON:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html

The base IRON architecture document has now been
published as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing
Research Group:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt

and the mechanisms and operational practices are documented
in the following active Internet drafts:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00

I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present
the approach. Please let me know if that works for you.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On=20
> Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM
> To: mext
> Subject: [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>=20
> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
> please note that we are meeting on friday.
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>=20

From julien.ietf@gmail.com  Mon Mar 14 11:17:17 2011
Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A1793A6A4A for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.26
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.339,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FBF2hswr9kCG for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846E83A6A8B for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so5264177bwz.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2DBYkl22gKrBhF+FqWfkbhpB33kCmAFPsU1OUUs3w1U=; b=iSP5QXdvbzg4UkF+jcO7kU+fYG/meRZ8nnVf3CU1WLbY2sSKjC0l84B78O8rmgAt3x yCTNh8SFt4YSOoTaaZES/yFSIZ0y682eU6QogSIKQEhMi8fYHGaRz1q7IYlhAbRS/aYF 6+0Yz7c4orh6iC8fWdui7sfdLMtkhrTupyP/I=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=FnABC0/lBC2jF5wB+1M7uHxSqeEED4hQ0MaAJNUL9R8nC9m9hW4oyw5tB0jtMV4YsP RyvhPs29Y6/QkS6DMv+hBPo1+5y0CLxJeuK8xc0kUIG76kIv5GFRFzbYV5+H/6miFESY H5ZPOqOykWaLovxDsM0DBvy/5yuhX0lZck9s0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.78.201 with SMTP id m9mr3382813fak.20.1300126705669; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.78.135 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:18:25 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=eJseWNAjFN8V85aMMNFCUX0FtqRaR4EwPXPwJ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:17:17 -0000

Hi Fred,

These drafts seem to be out-of-scope for the MEXT WG that is chartered
to work on Mobile IPv6.

--julien

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Templin, Fred L
<Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>
> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach
> to mobility management known as IRON:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>
> The base IRON architecture document has now been
> published as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing
> Research Group:
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>
> and the mechanisms and operational practices are documented
> in the following active Internet drafts:
>
> =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
> =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
> =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
> =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>
> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present
> the approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
>
> Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM
>> To: mext
>> Subject: [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>
>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
>> please note that we are meeting on friday.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>

From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com  Mon Mar 14 11:43:44 2011
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8E73A68CE for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id geTWyIGB02B1 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9E53A68C3 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p2EIj5em029999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:45:05 +0100
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2EIj5nA016177; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:45:05 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [132.166.133.173] (is010173.intra.cea.fr [132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p2EIj4fK030275; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:45:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4D7E6230.20109@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:45:04 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "DEMAILLY Nicolas \(P\)" <nicolas.demailly@ixxi.biz>
Subject: [MEXT] New version of draft "Router Advertisements for Routing between Moving Networks"
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:44 -0000

Hi MEXTers,

I have just submitted a new version of the draft "Router Advertisements
for Routing between Moving Networks".

It is located at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01

Changes: added a couple of use-case scenarios issued from a public
transportation setting (section 3), and referred to the HA-less RO
draft, and updated the authorship.

I think there may still exist some remarks that I have not yet taken
into account.

I would like to ask for comments once again and, if deemed necessary, I
would be happy to present during a 5minute slot at the MEXT WG meeting
in Prague.

Alex

From marcelo@it.uc3m.es  Mon Mar 14 11:55:26 2011
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862443A6A40 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.569
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5lbfEBqQokyC for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2B83A6E0C for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (50.31.18.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.18.31.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B36C87FC12; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:56:47 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:56:46 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18012.000
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:55:26 -0000

Hi Fred,

This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited to the the 
Mobile IPv6 protocol.
Hence, we decline your request.

Regards, marcelo


El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>
> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach
> to mobility management known as IRON:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>
> The base IRON architecture document has now been
> published as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing
> Research Group:
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>
> and the mechanisms and operational practices are documented
> in the following active Internet drafts:
>
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>
> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present
> the approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
>
> Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM
>> To: mext
>> Subject: [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>
>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
>> please note that we are meeting on friday.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>


From Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com  Mon Mar 14 12:03:51 2011
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965FB3A6A2D for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.424
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KuW4-x5SqWJt for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A693A6E90 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p2EJ4tvc014592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p2EJ4sNc004465; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-10.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-10.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.113]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p2EJ4r85004446 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.97]) by XCH-NWHT-10.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.113]) with mapi; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:04:53 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:04:53 -0700
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
Thread-Index: AcvieZcTj9D5nRU1Rw27+0xnByv2BwAAJ84A
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021BA8@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:03:51 -0000

Marcelo / Julien,

I believe this approach is a better way of doing
mobility management than Mobile IPv6, and as such
should be discussed in an appropriate forum. Should
I then take this to the general intarea?

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On=20
> Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:57 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: julien.ietf@gmail.com; mext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>=20
> Hi Fred,
>=20
> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited to the the=20
> Mobile IPv6 protocol.
> Hence, we decline your request.
>=20
> Regards, marcelo
>=20
>=20
> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribi=F3:
> > Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
> >
> > In January, I posted several messages on a new approach
> > to mobility management known as IRON:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
> >
> > The base IRON architecture document has now been
> > published as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing
> > Research Group:
> >
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
> >
> > and the mechanisms and operational practices are documented
> > in the following active Internet drafts:
> >
> >    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
> >    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
> >    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
> >    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
> >
> > I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present
> > the approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
> >
> > Fred
> > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM
> >> To: mext
> >> Subject: [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
> >>
> >> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
> >> please note that we are meeting on friday.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MEXT mailing list
> >> MEXT@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> =

From scott.brim@gmail.com  Mon Mar 14 12:06:43 2011
Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E643A6AA9 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.575
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EoMV+Ft8Wkq2 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430503A6A2D for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so6491969iwl.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=AouGfc3IKZcg4xz6a6LpujIRniufgQXa5rj6p6nrkmI=; b=p7Vy0b9jWFlGDmGb1WLPGRcMylPmx13VZWFJBu4OvGhQV9BT8PeN02V9B4azeD1DN+ YzuUxjimh/lnP9oLPBmXe1qL1fhSqpr+hYtEO76GeStoM8goJCRi9Tcs6r5vaSCsgdsH 2sYZD+zif9qgcaWR6SvXR6pDbldUbh5k5puIQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=SzUk7bwIDLn+PziLmDBqerXmonO+saM9clLVQfWa4eSAGkxnm5P+ZFagU7K4UtPmQW scPohDxFRr1G7erSc4z1foRB4aYrHXeItUakMM9VUy3X7PX9j/NmO1rBPMUCMVkT6tYs 8/ruJ5i87qffTzBxVa13JlPJQ2CI1AO8YJif4=
Received: by 10.42.137.137 with SMTP id y9mr14269459ict.502.1300129686080; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.114.81 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021BA8@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021BA8@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
From: Scott W Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:07:46 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTikajeWrdL1bMMg=8K9CdF5BVFEvYdsPfYG3Vhq7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:06:43 -0000

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 15:04, Templin, Fred L
<Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> Marcelo / Julien,
>
> I believe this approach is a better way of doing
> mobility management than Mobile IPv6, and as such
> should be discussed in an appropriate forum. Should
> I then take this to the general intarea?

That's the way I see it.  The MIP-related groups are specifically for
MIP engineering, not "mobile IP" generically.

Scott

From marcelo@it.uc3m.es  Mon Mar 14 12:22:44 2011
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508DB3A6B5F for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.572
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sF9a-pWsDUMW for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B63D3A6979 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (50.31.18.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.18.31.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A51CD3BD9; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:23:55 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D7E6B4A.80108@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:23:54 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021BA8@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021BA8@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18012.000
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:22:44 -0000

As i said, this is out of scope for MEXT because the scope is limited to 
the MIPv6 protocol.
Which WG would be best fit for this, i cannot tell.

Regards, marcelo



El 14/03/11 20:04, Templin, Fred L escribió:
> Marcelo / Julien,
>
> I believe this approach is a better way of doing
> mobility management than Mobile IPv6, and as such
> should be discussed in an appropriate forum. Should
> I then take this to the general intarea?
>
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:57 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: julien.ietf@gmail.com; mext@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited to the the
>> Mobile IPv6 protocol.
>> Hence, we decline your request.
>>
>> Regards, marcelo
>>
>>
>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>>
>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach
>>> to mobility management known as IRON:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>>
>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been
>>> published as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing
>>> Research Group:
>>>
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>>
>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are documented
>>> in the following active Internet drafts:
>>>
>>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>>>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>>
>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present
>>> the approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
>>>
>>> Fred
>>> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM
>>>> To: mext
>>>> Subject: [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>>>
>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
>>>> please note that we are meeting on friday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>> MEXT@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>


From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org  Mon Mar 14 17:15:02 2011
Return-Path: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF933A6E6D; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.583
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zb+rggqwTHrF; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE14F3A6BF7; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12
Message-ID: <20110315001501.29845.61785.idtracker@localhost>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:15:01 -0700
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: [MEXT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mext-firewall-vendor-04.txt
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:15:03 -0000

--NextPart

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           : Guidelines for firewall vendors regarding MIPv6 traffic
	Author(s)       : S. Krishnan, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mext-firewall-vendor-04.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2011-03-14

This document presents some recommendations for firewall vendors to
help them implement their firewalls in a way that allows Mobile IPv6
and DSMIPv6 signaling and data messages to pass through.  This
document describes how to implement stateful packet filtering
capability for MIPv6 and DSMIPv6.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-firewall-vendor-04.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.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-mext-firewall-vendor-04.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2011-03-14170247.I-D@ietf.org>


--NextPart--

From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org  Mon Mar 14 17:15:03 2011
Return-Path: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9147B3A6C0A; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.583
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id caMl7gm5wEjh; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0833A6D2E; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12
Message-ID: <20110315001501.29845.75851.idtracker@localhost>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:15:01 -0700
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: [MEXT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mext-firewall-admin-04.txt
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:15:03 -0000

--NextPart

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           : Guidelines for firewall administrators regarding MIPv6 traffic
	Author(s)       : S. Krishnan, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mext-firewall-admin-04.txt
	Pages           : 12
	Date            : 2011-03-14

This document presents some recommendations for firewall
administrators to help them configure their existing firewalls in a
way that allows in certain deployment scenarios the Mobile IPv6 and
DSMIPv6 signaling and data messages to pass through.  For other
scenarios, the support of additional mechanisms to create pinholes
required for MIPv6 will be necessary.  This document assumes that the
firewalls in question include some kind of stateful packet filtering
capability.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-firewall-admin-04.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.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-mext-firewall-admin-04.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <2011-03-14170316.I-D@ietf.org>


--NextPart--

From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com  Thu Mar 17 14:56:27 2011
Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720893A6B2C for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id irDDB2rxQ1eg for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5896D3A6B24 for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so2786130wwa.13 for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=czXiDfCsNY7wW+itM4VUN6r+bw6dQscKve7lz5Uinoo=; b=wZ1sKP3FHL9IwF6cC5Z6LYMjk6cWnolx5PrIfqB1RUzpqh2oCuUG5rgmINMmtT9aTL wiOXStHiDe0wDMDF1TCX4pHOgklszRR1mf++vqxJfJJMTnvAmmEQF6DKJq/b3ct+gQ66 8bxo3RdZRjqRsO+PeCwVHV7HvuxUfEfa2Z4IU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=v2NExxN7MCVtLZFsAaazysI05q08lu7hEbW1tUJzXz716MAmROBp+X04VrTuefDEcx 9UzIG36Uc/IS1FwBIU7JZWaML4onWXlawZE02l8+fPuprlVDxhi9WDoMwlOFxHfvn9TE t1SFbhg7oyHp5S3Rl+oOd7XafF3UWCgnU/8k0=
Received: by 10.216.143.17 with SMTP id k17mr1381814wej.74.1300399074076; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.100] (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o6sm2103649wbo.3.2011.03.17.14.57.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D8283DF.7030702@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:57:51 +0100
From: Tomasz Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: MEXT WG <mext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
Subject: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:56:27 -0000

Dear MEXT WG,
Behcet asked me to review draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01.txt. It refers to
draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17.txt, so I'd like to briefly comment on both of
them.

Disclaimer: I'm not involved in MEXT activity (nor do I intend to). I'm
quite familiar with DHCPv6 and to some extent DHCPv4 protocols, so my
comments are related to those aspects.

draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17:
MIP6 Relay Agent Option defined in Section 3.2 of
draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 is specific to one option only. On the other
hand Ted's RSOO proposal is generic and can be applied to any options.
This make RSOO better approach. I strongly suggest to modify Section 3.2
of draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 to reference RSOO draft, rather than define
its own dedicated option.

draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01:
In Section 1 you enumerate all IPv4-IPv6 permutations, without any
justification why they are actually needed. What's the use case there?
My understanding is that there is Dual Stack mobile node. Is it supposed
to do DHCPv4 only? Why? If client visits network that is IPv4 only, how
is it supposed to do MIPv6?

If you have dual stack mobile node, it should run both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6
clients, each configuring its own protocol family.

I think Ted's major objection was Section 4.2, where DSMIPv6 Relay
Agent Option is defined. Why do you need this option for? What options
is it supposed to carry? Are you expecting it to convey DHCPv6 options,
as defined in mip6-hiopt-17? That would be wrong on many levels. You
would encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options. DHCPv4 clients
typically don't have parsing capabilities of DHCPv6 option formats.

At current form, this draft is unclear at best. Who is including
OPTION_DSMIP6_RELAY option? Relay?

My generic recommendation is that authors should should start with:
- explaining why you need this instead of using DHCPv4 for IPv4
  configuration and DHCPv6 for IPv6 configuration.
- redesigning those option to not requiring conveying DHCPv6 options in
  DHCPv4.
- explain your use case and the rationale behind it.


References:
RSOO draft:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options/

Please keep me on cc: as I'm not subscribed to mext mailing list.

-- 
Tomek

From xiayangsong@huawei.com  Thu Mar 17 16:12:02 2011
Return-Path: <xiayangsong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C673A6B3E for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A+KVekigtEmW for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga02-in.huawei.com (usaga02-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DFB3A69B3 for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LI80056H5UGZY@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.9.107]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug  8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LI800J3J5UGVQ@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:13:22 -0700
Received: from DFWEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.47]) by DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:13:27 -0700
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:13:26 +0000
From: xiayangsong <xiayangsong@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4D8283DF.7030702@gmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.193.34.133]
To: Tomasz Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, MEXT WG <mext@ietf.org>
Message-id: <CB60645E6241144CB82269604373757AE6D72F@dfweml503-mbx.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Accept-Language: en-US
Thread-topic: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments
Thread-index: AQHL5O5q1r6E+qfhYkOyka41ouyFsJQyImzg
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
References: <4D8283DF.7030702@gmail.com>
Cc: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17	comments
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:12:02 -0000

Hi Tomek

Thank you for reviewing the document.

Please see my inline comments...

BR
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tomasz Mrugalski
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:58 PM
To: MEXT WG
Cc: Behcet Sarikaya
Subject: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments

Dear MEXT WG,
Behcet asked me to review draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01.txt. It refers to
draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17.txt, so I'd like to briefly comment on both of
them.

Disclaimer: I'm not involved in MEXT activity (nor do I intend to). I'm
quite familiar with DHCPv6 and to some extent DHCPv4 protocols, so my
comments are related to those aspects.

draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17:
MIP6 Relay Agent Option defined in Section 3.2 of
draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 is specific to one option only. On the other
hand Ted's RSOO proposal is generic and can be applied to any options.
This make RSOO better approach. I strongly suggest to modify Section 3.2
of draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 to reference RSOO draft, rather than define
its own dedicated option.

draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01:
In Section 1 you enumerate all IPv4-IPv6 permutations, without any
justification why they are actually needed. What's the use case there?
My understanding is that there is Dual Stack mobile node. Is it supposed
to do DHCPv4 only? Why? If client visits network that is IPv4 only, how
is it supposed to do MIPv6?
Frank=>This is all about Dual Stack MIPv6.  There is one scenario that a IPv4 only mobile node needs to discover a home agent address through DHCPv4 protocol.
According to specification of DSMIPv6, the home address needs both an IPv4
and IPv6 address.
 

If you have dual stack mobile node, it should run both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6
clients, each configuring its own protocol family.
Frank=>DSMIPv6 mobile node does not necessarily support both IPv4 and IPv6,
or DHCPv4 and DHCPv6.


I think Ted's major objection was Section 4.2, where DSMIPv6 Relay
Agent Option is defined. Why do you need this option for? What options
is it supposed to carry? Are you expecting it to convey DHCPv6 options,
as defined in mip6-hiopt-17? That would be wrong on many levels. You
would encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options. DHCPv4 clients
typically don't have parsing capabilities of DHCPv6 option formats.
Frank=>Just I explained aforementioned, we need define DHCPv4 option for
carrying home agents information(such as IPv6 addresses). We can't encapsulate
DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options because the client is DHCPv4 only.

At current form, this draft is unclear at best. Who is including
OPTION_DSMIP6_RELAY option? Relay?
Frank=>Access routers as DHCP relay and DHCPv4 servers includes the option.

My generic recommendation is that authors should should start with:
- explaining why you need this instead of using DHCPv4 for IPv4
  configuration and DHCPv6 for IPv6 configuration.
- redesigning those option to not requiring conveying DHCPv6 options in
  DHCPv4.
- explain your use case and the rationale behind it.
Frank=>Thank your recommendation,  and we will update this draft accordingly.

References:
RSOO draft:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options/

Please keep me on cc: as I'm not subscribed to mext mailing list.

-- 
Tomek
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

From maxpassion@gmail.com  Thu Mar 17 20:03:15 2011
Return-Path: <maxpassion@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF363A696C for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cJ7Grfltoe+Z for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21CB03A6969 for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so4141582iwl.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ceoBiPsYGhjmEXIkmvLLLdXDlAfvfWNOIWtGSNBgu+g=; b=CrP8GHcECU0NccNzOB5t12G/tukvGWJaS80d+hou+Ag3sUXg9wSTzOmK28iX1mmRsK NMbXhXqcSJKls8wP/1fMB4BhfWWCun0c2Z15/ALDT912ta+UEMP+7rBIoU/WTd8UvHlB xmkjp+knF049HhQm6EldTuc3aZZiMFvgRe5oM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=hEqWGIcaXQWcI2hD6qUsLjBxDJvapkrxVx9CbGMQGkxKzj962ZwpkR8b+nYrvOIvBD bJyTig+Yo4bHv/+oMn/4qyMMaWcwNHbePzPawefWOyQbZQyKqXuZM65psbK3+pMDsFzW eBBopL+nZpihTk+6C8muCyJxas3bZM2haYZwk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.43.57.200 with SMTP id wh8mr936427icb.29.1300417483557; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.240.7 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4D7A7B53.5060604@it.uc3m.es>
References: <4D7A7B53.5060604@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:04:43 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=hvcqMkOqpA4aAnoi=6rGG9Ti=AaV5BuXp_Xok@mail.gmail.com>
From: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft version of the agenda
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:03:16 -0000

Hi Marcelo,

Sorry for the late request. We'd like to present "Distributed
Deployment of Mobile IPv6" :
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-mext-distributed-mobile-ip-00. 10
minutes is enough.

Thanks!

Best regards,
Dapeng Liu

2011/3/12, marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>:
> find it in
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>

From song.jun@zte.com.cn  Thu Mar 17 22:54:45 2011
Return-Path: <song.jun@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241A03A67A1; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -94.891
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-94.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rw6wvC7vMkb8; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DA13A6405; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 50832761818882; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:55:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 84746.5519691749; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:56:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p2I5u34r051056; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:56:03 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from song.jun@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=hvcqMkOqpA4aAnoi=6rGG9Ti=AaV5BuXp_Xok@mail.gmail.com>
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OF0390B7EE.16B31D8F-ON48257857.00203F32-48257857.00209A27@zte.com.cn>
From: song.jun@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:56:05 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-03-18 13:56:05, Serialize complete at 2011-03-18 13:56:05
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00209A2448257857_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p2I5u34r051056
Cc: Dapeng Liu <liudapeng@chinamobile.com>, mext-bounces@ietf.org, mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: [MEXT] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogUmU6ICBkcmFmdCB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBh?= =?gb2312?b?Z2VuZGE=?=
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 05:54:45 -0000

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 00209A2448257857_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--=_alternative 00209A2448257857_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="GB2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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=
--=_alternative 00209A2448257857_=--


From marcelo@it.uc3m.es  Thu Mar 17 23:22:22 2011
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46983A6783; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.927
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.927 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.622, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4,  SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pRKn-VB+tUMP; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1133A6405; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (46.30.18.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.18.30.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BAD4BEFC50; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:23:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D82FA6D.20006@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:23:41 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: song.jun@zte.com.cn
References: <OF0390B7EE.16B31D8F-ON48257857.00203F32-48257857.00209A27@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OF0390B7EE.16B31D8F-ON48257857.00203F32-48257857.00209A27@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18018.003
Cc: Dapeng Liu <liudapeng@chinamobile.com>, mext-bounces@ietf.org, mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogUmU6ICBkcmFmdCB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBh?= =?gb2312?b?Z2VuZGE=?=
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 06:22:22 -0000

ok

El 18/03/11 6:56, song.jun@zte.com.cn escribi¨®:
>
> Hi£¬ Marcelo
>
> We'd like to present
> _http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-distributed-mobility-traffic-analysis-00_.
> May we apply for a ten minutes slot?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best regards!
>
> Jun Song
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
> This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.


From marcelo@it.uc3m.es  Fri Mar 18 00:18:53 2011
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FB43A6B02 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pu8o7rQ5skSc for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514133A6B00 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (wlap005.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3116ABF5A3E; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:20:20 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D8307B3.6060709@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:20:19 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: liu dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
References: <4D7A7B53.5060604@it.uc3m.es> <AANLkTi=hvcqMkOqpA4aAnoi=6rGG9Ti=AaV5BuXp_Xok@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=hvcqMkOqpA4aAnoi=6rGG9Ti=AaV5BuXp_Xok@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18018.003
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft version of the agenda
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:18:53 -0000

ok

El 18/03/11 4:04, liu dapeng escribió:
> Hi Marcelo,
>
> Sorry for the late request. We'd like to present "Distributed
> Deployment of Mobile IPv6" :
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-mext-distributed-mobile-ip-00. 10
> minutes is enough.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best regards,
> Dapeng Liu
>
> 2011/3/12, marcelo bagnulo braun<marcelo@it.uc3m.es>:
>> find it in
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>>
>> Regards, marcelo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>


From behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com  Fri Mar 18 13:46:44 2011
Return-Path: <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0893A69A7 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nLQCgznYubxl for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm24-vm1.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm24-vm1.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D52DA3A69B3 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.91.68] by nm24.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2011 20:48:11 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.57] by tm8.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2011 20:48:10 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1057.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Mar 2011 20:48:10 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 987110.54852.bm@omp1057.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 33561 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Mar 2011 20:48:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1300481290; bh=0wpfn1bsfH6xVPOjmiMtAmVbzArGMWHThM3QhPCjLQ0=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mO65FOb0P+Pik2pzkEUVPrsF5D47v3a9kqhm+7yHAfkH3dx9838H8Z4U+kgouk9qDbHpUt8iaUNmuN67SDeDekvVbeeXxfXflWMbAjuuV+BGdJs/ljUs+IViHnueOtUAYUEu222kAqb0d2p2Exvk2/Xxnh7KwhhGyi6kJD1T3qA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SsI4ntaTL58H/nsNKG3gzEp+zXU3+MWyLTB8gXBlJAQrootUGQx/MwFndBvzTpHWekhzcbC1j0lzlRVckfB5yvYWbJg4AWOncA1VuSlJJFqIo/GvjJ3ZMz//QGBCsdu+RvelrawOvduA+lh6GbkUIXYzNBGBhSB+fLy/ec182Fk=;
Message-ID: <487502.30828.qm@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: HN7wuuEVM1kTDlohwMgO.CvFAnF8T8pMiPuYQKFXb7sKp3J 5DFt_KQDwRvzpYtZNrGMK_3VOdv5hpc8SOW.b9zNzAHceuxQEK0iH27XJ3Rv P8PY.Orqv_bztKlCSZBO73CWKu_zgHfUi6QSJvfJ_joCCqTktBwAvploKwja SHoJM88ra_8UvgYeGpUOSBgiUDo6qCt689Rt62qVKJmRSmLfbPTaDHoHYiL6 Txoe.v1dWBv9l2ptGh2ieR6jto44XuWAle0_8v_naOEnHrEzu.X9qAQLlVL0 rfSS29AUo9sB5FseWZWzPgk1CCxKln__w_yaT9ao7E8ktyKAUfyqoZXSHEsD mUTEPlY59Qm6MnHOR5h.NQiJNdpyuhLD3NJz8zUb43sBR0QCapxIY0u5KR4A fV3uN_gWt1bK6YQ--
Received: from [206.16.17.212] by web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:48:10 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.109.295617
References: <4D8283DF.7030702@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
To: Tomasz Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, MEXT WG <mext@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D8283DF.7030702@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:46:45 -0000

Hi Tomek,
  Can you please confirm that 

RSOO defined in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options-04 is for
DHCPv6 only. There's no need or intent to define similar option
for DHCPv4.

i.e. draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01  has no RSOO problem as in 
draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17?

Thanks,

Behcet

> 
> Dear MEXT WG,
> Behcet asked me to review draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01.txt. It  refers to
> draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17.txt, so I'd like to briefly comment on  both of
> them.
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm not involved in MEXT activity (nor do I  intend to). I'm
> quite familiar with DHCPv6 and to some extent DHCPv4  protocols, so my
> comments are related to those  aspects.
> 
> draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17:
> MIP6 Relay Agent Option defined in  Section 3.2 of
> draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 is specific to one option only. On  the other
> hand Ted's RSOO proposal is generic and can be applied to any  options.
> This make RSOO better approach. I strongly suggest to modify Section  3.2
> of draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 to reference RSOO draft, rather than  define
> its own dedicated option.
> 
> draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01:
> In  Section 1 you enumerate all IPv4-IPv6 permutations, without any
> justification  why they are actually needed. What's the use case there?
> My understanding is  that there is Dual Stack mobile node. Is it supposed
> to do DHCPv4 only? Why?  If client visits network that is IPv4 only, how
> is it supposed to do  MIPv6?
> 
> If you have dual stack mobile node, it should run both DHCPv4 and  DHCPv6
> clients, each configuring its own protocol family.
> 
> I think  Ted's major objection was Section 4.2, where DSMIPv6 Relay
> Agent Option is  defined. Why do you need this option for? What options
> is it supposed to  carry? Are you expecting it to convey DHCPv6 options,
> as defined in  mip6-hiopt-17? That would be wrong on many levels. You
> would encapsulate  DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options. DHCPv4 clients
> typically don't have  parsing capabilities of DHCPv6 option formats.
> 
> At current form, this  draft is unclear at best. Who is including
> OPTION_DSMIP6_RELAY option?  Relay?
> 
> My generic recommendation is that authors should should start  with:
> - explaining why you need this instead of using DHCPv4 for  IPv4
>   configuration and DHCPv6 for IPv6 configuration.
> - redesigning  those option to not requiring conveying DHCPv6 options in
>   DHCPv4.
> -  explain your use case and the rationale behind  it.
> 
> 
> References:
> RSOO  draft:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options/
> 
> Please  keep me on cc: as I'm not subscribed to mext mailing list.
> 
> -- 
> Tomek
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing  list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> 


      

From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com  Sat Mar 19 09:38:59 2011
Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DDD53A692E for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GeJoTVjORTOn for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDE03A6931 for <mext@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so1399074ewy.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=a6qQj/Q02Ot4YPrzs89QVdPECE+ramjJC/F1iLavR+o=; b=mraNY35PR9Zi8FqZ8Hw5blwTU5ZplNbJI/KB9OiUxn22/rbBBf5HWrWa5cUDd/b+f/ 9n70XKka64vZR8UYqwtX7lzkBRTE+aSVlD0R+YPANU7uyc7xeA3LDCIIJpccOyzMpM65 YsngQbTjYNGW5L5JR/Tz3DzScgeXBhBOEYw10=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=yAfyP9Dlx/O1Deyk5Ia72aP1oDZJ+GekVq7qNfBmQnvmrZIo67lXXSvsMEvZ7XuaVq sgVfKp4Vdkn4Kt41sHkrKAVr6utvG9wGg6Aoyd8Juju8jgQKWaW1BJWYkhFYcItPqN8C trvi/uO8rCqNuUmr+MtewkUVF/I+B4I6w1Wc0=
Received: by 10.213.27.148 with SMTP id i20mr1035425ebc.20.1300552826036; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.100] (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t50sm702604eeh.7.2011.03.19.09.40.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D84DC78.4070108@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:40:24 +0100
From: Tomasz Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: xiayangsong <xiayangsong@huawei.com>
References: <4D8283DF.7030702@gmail.com> <CB60645E6241144CB82269604373757AE6D72F@dfweml503-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB60645E6241144CB82269604373757AE6D72F@dfweml503-mbx.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>, MEXT WG <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:39:00 -0000

On 2011-03-18 00:13, xiayangsong wrote:
> Please see my inline comments...
> 
> BR
> Frank

> I think Ted's major objection was Section 4.2, where DSMIPv6 Relay
> Agent Option is defined. Why do you need this option for? What options
> is it supposed to carry? Are you expecting it to convey DHCPv6 options,
> as defined in mip6-hiopt-17? That would be wrong on many levels. You
> would encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options. DHCPv4 clients
> typically don't have parsing capabilities of DHCPv6 option formats.
> Frank=>Just I explained aforementioned, we need define DHCPv4 option for
> carrying home agents information(such as IPv6 addresses). We can't encapsulate
> DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options because the client is DHCPv4 only.
Agree. I maybe didn't express myself clearly. DHCPv6 options must not be
encapsulated in DHCPv4 options.

Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the authors, so let me explain how I
read the draft: draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01, section 4.2 defines DSMIPv6
Relay Agent Option (a DHCPv4 Option) that contains sub-options field.
Its content is defined as "A series of sub-options as specified in
I-D.ietf-mip6-hiopt". ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 defines couple DHCPv6 options.
I'm not sure how can this be interpreted otherwise than an attempt to
encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions within DHCPv4 option.

> At current form, this draft is unclear at best. Who is including
> OPTION_DSMIP6_RELAY option? Relay?
> Frank=>Access routers as DHCP relay and DHCPv4 servers includes the option.
I think this should be clarified in the draft.

Hope that helps,
Tomek

From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com  Sat Mar 19 09:45:45 2011
Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9333A692E for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3fMrl68sUpKQ for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33AA3A6AB5 for <mext@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so1404701eye.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Sevh2ISxHIDSjtPd68A9Z81T9cOC/tyPKMG099fA9Q0=; b=OIEow6EwAv2W5YUVQmnHFY1YGPmA+QTXGLOTHV6AGCVTzLiSurhsQ5DuPina3YC9LK pEC1/tPGENb5pul49XducVmQaMWBy1JCSr59h/jDS4R9U9W6yTnYJxuNqgsNPhgTiK9Q x0E7o8sVzXZNqY4s92WlsJho6wSnsQD5bT3+4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Z7nVWK8G8CYnyuVBiMCPGiwe1y5OVr4/UACvDvvsIAuW5Uv/A2ZmsV73JmCh/SmPs7 SNvigmk84lY014Dpec4DGSccpFAvbIXZ8t4hishYB6w+Xaqjv7aK9TIcl6nw5TvtQyHQ lebZBGe5dWo72o73kaq+IOISZDWWS/0QR2clY=
Received: by 10.14.37.76 with SMTP id x52mr466025eea.27.1300553235182; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.100] (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q53sm705927eeh.4.2011.03.19.09.47.14 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D84DE12.1010702@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:47:14 +0100
From: Tomasz Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
References: <4D8283DF.7030702@gmail.com> <487502.30828.qm@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <487502.30828.qm@web111405.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>, MEXT WG <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:45:46 -0000

On 2011-03-18 21:48, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Tomek,
>   Can you please confirm that 
> 
> RSOO defined in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options-04 is for
> DHCPv6 only. 
Yes. I confirm.

> There's no need or intent to define similar option
> for DHCPv4.
I can't speak for the whole DHC WG. I haven't heard about such plans.
Also, keep in mind that DHCPv4 uses completely different approach to
relaying as compared to DHCPv6, so the usefulness of defining RSOO for
DHCPv4 is somewhat questionable.

Tomek

From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com  Sun Mar 20 07:12:17 2011
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD5C3A6AC0 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.129
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1CJLYs9GN2O for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 173AE3A6BC3 for <mext@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 07:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC0B940114 for <mext@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:13:40 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:13:39 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext@ietf.org
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110320-0, 20/03/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:12:17 -0000

Marcelo, Hi,

I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's request of
agenda item.

The current agenda
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt

contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related to the Mobile
IPv6 protocol per se.  Additionally, agenda's DMM core item has a
discussion which does not seem to converge on the use of Mobile IPv6.

In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of MEXT doing _only_
Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I see it today.

Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is related to IKE
which is related to Mobile IPv6 security.

I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly.  I am saying
this because...

I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do (RA-based routing)
for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run Mobile IPv6 but need something
else than Mobile IPv6 Type Codes.

That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning, thanks.

Alex

Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
> Hi Fred,
>
> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited to the the
> Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we decline your request.
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>
> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>
>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach to mobility
>> management known as IRON:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>
>> The base IRON architecture document has now been published as an
>> experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing Research Group:
>>
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>
>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are documented in the
>>  following active Internet drafts:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>
>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present the
>> approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
>>
>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: mext-bounces@ietf.org
>>> [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo
>>> braun Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM To: mext Subject:
>>> [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>>
>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
>>> please note that we are meeting on friday.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com  Sun Mar 20 08:25:45 2011
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF37728C0D8 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.529
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.520, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oZXxIXbpc6gc for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0A728C0CF for <mext@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6409400F2 for <mext@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:27:09 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D861CCC.5010600@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:27:08 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext@ietf.org
References: <20110312000001.8564.99335.idtracker@localhost>	<AANLkTinC6qZbQdSX45j1FY5K-boWCMk2EmxM496tcOE8@mail.gmail.com> <4D7AC1CE.9040105@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D7AC1CE.9040105@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110320-0, 20/03/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Subject: Re: [MEXT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:25:45 -0000

Le 12/03/2011 01:43, Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
> Hello Julien,
>
> You're welcome. It's been more than a dozen years since the start of
> RFC 3775, and quite an experience. I remember when we were pretty
> sure that IPv6 would be widely available by year 2000 or so, and
> we'd all have quite heterogeneous access to converged mobile/fixed
> voice/data networks. I guess something went wrong along the way.

Hello Charles,

I am interested understanding what may have gone wrong, to improve
future action.

Overall, I think Mobile IPv6 is relevant and needed but only in some
particular settings satisfying some conditions.

Generally, lack of truth in advertisement is a factor hampering Mobile
IPv6 adoption.  Not only once the handover story was advertised
on sold products without being actually implemented.  Advertising the
handover feature is encouraging in the short term - it is a beautiful
story which sells, but lacking the real feature prevents wider adoption.

I _think_ one of the reasons may relate to the adoption by some SDO.  On
one hand, SDO adoption is very encouraging, assuming it materializes.
  It is that materialization in deployment which seems to
be an issue, IMHO.  I think too much importance may have been given to
the SDO need.  Were it to be developped for more pragmatic small issues
at hand I guess it may have been better.

It is good to have a single IETF protocol to do IPv6 mobility.  But
there is a misunderstanding about this.  SDO is tempted to pick that one
protocol as universal solution for mobility.  Or, Internet is not for
one particular SDO.  Mobile IPv6 is designed to work _across_ networks
using protocols of different SDOs.  Within one single technology SDO
Mobile IPv6 is an unnecessary burden.

Another SDO aspect: one particular SDO success went very fast and far in
the recent years.  Surprisingly in a sense - that happens without Mobile
IPv6.  Worse, it seems to be trying to to avoid the use of Mobile IPv6.
  For example, in a public transportation vehicle, the tendency is to let
passengers use that pervasive SDO network, instead of recommending a
WiFi network deployed _within_ the vehicle.  The net effect is that it
avoids handovers and the changes in the IP address while moving.

Another issue may lie in the discrepancy between the (mis)advertised
features and the problems it actually solves.  It advertises too much. 
Mobile IPv6 is often presented as _the_ protocol to run on a mobile 
device.  But in practice there are several other IPv6 protocols run on a 
mobile device which help it deal with that mobility.

There may be issues as well about the MIP6 recommendation of particular
types of tunnels, and IPR, preventing adoption.

The problems Mobile IPv6 actually solves, and which no other protocols
solves are only two and, strangely enough, only when they're both
needed: reachability at a unique HoA _and_ continuous real-time
sessions.  Taken separately, each problem is solved by other protocols
e.g. RTP, VPN.  The context of those two solved problems is also
particular: it is the worldwide Internet, where tunnels are necessary
and route updates impossible.  A context of only one SDO network is not
relevant for Mobile IPv6, because within it route updates are possible
and MIP tunnels are a burden to the existing tunnels.

Naming: if it were called "dynamic tunnel setup for real-time
sessions combined with reachability at unique address, across
heterogeneous links, for wide scale Internet" instead of "Mobile IPv6"
it could have been better.  It may have gotten less visibility, but
adoption may have been wider.

My optimistic note is that Mobile IPv6 protocol _is_ needed in these
particular settings where some particular conditions are met.  It may be
that these settings are not as numerous as initially expected.

Alex

>
> Regards, Charlie P.
>
>
>
> On 3/11/2011 4:34 PM, Julien Laganier wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> This will be the last revision of the rfc3775bis. It resolves the
>> last discuss held by Tim Polk, and thus it will move towards the
>> RFC Editor for publication. Thanks again to Charlie for
>> volunteering to serve as an editor of our most important document!
>>
>> --julien
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:00 PM,<Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>>> 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 : Mobility Support in IPv6 Author(s) : C. Perkins, et al.
>>> Filename : draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt Pages : 177 Date :
>>> 2011-03-11
>>>
>>> This document specifies Mobile IPv6, a protocol which allows
>>> nodes to remain reachable while moving around in the IPv6
>>> Internet. Each mobile node is always identified by its home
>>> address, regardless of its current point of attachment to the
>>> Internet. While situated away from its home, a mobile node is
>>> also associated with a care-of address, which provides
>>> information about the mobile node's current location. IPv6
>>> packets addressed to a mobile node's home address are
>>> transparently routed to its care-of address. The protocol enables
>>> IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a mobile node's home address
>>> with its care-of address, and to then send any packets destined
>>> for the mobile node directly to it at this care-of address. To
>>> support this operation, Mobile IPv6 defines a new IPv6 protocol
>>> and a new destination option. All IPv6 nodes, whether mobile or
>>> stationary, can communicate with mobile nodes. This document
>>> obsoletes RFC 3775.
>>>
>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.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.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From pars.mutaf@gmail.com  Mon Mar 21 02:42:25 2011
Return-Path: <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C187F3A67E4 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4Wa5YL2nlS1 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61033A67FF for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so4348259qyk.10 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=OEY5i0ynkNjIvW+Mt4+3T9puz3bVhSE4MjMapHHv/5s=; b=tNoI7jPnL+AsfOg7jOQj8qfujI7jAVYS5ZTerqWETbSewL0XqRAkWlLoXuJzkOL0MY U4NaqfZ4zZ8xNCDUlrqKdR4lPBVC1fNIReMc9FM85sTGGhkmEfp52MTGWiM1QCUFnfUe X2AADSX8dVCU1LuO4hjQJTVXUHGFMef5hJaSY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=RBklWMH6f7nI+x2YRzqE73PHF5WXciHFC0lfa1TeKeafcx6bJfnwjDhtu2zvyml4dS 1g3+mnF8QU9hab0sFYd+r2t9OxZpXlNm2rCUaRyfOl3A0Z5IvD0BxaH5yZXHh1HBGGly RdKc5mzUdziQILZA9evHhssk7DGJnoVyS/paE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.217.134 with SMTP id hm6mr3030483qab.172.1300700637041; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.67.13 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:43:57 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikW+MfR_R4A+g2+o=BZDnsAoOmfLHNgiOm4Z_-n@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: mext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300faf7d6e15a0049efaf71d
Subject: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:42:25 -0000

--20cf300faf7d6e15a0049efaf71d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hello,

I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on battery
powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 community.

The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. SIP INVITE or
TCP SYN to a victim's home address.

For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with
802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks on
phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumption
because of the longer distance to the base station.

The victim becomes unusable.

Regards,

Pars

--20cf300faf7d6e15a0049efaf71d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello, <br><br>I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks o=
n battery powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 com=
munity. <br><br>The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g=
. SIP INVITE or TCP SYN to a victim&#39;s home address. <br>
<br>For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with=
 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks =
on phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumpti=
on because of the longer distance to the base station. <br>
<br>The victim becomes unusable.<br><br>Regards, <br><br>Pars<br>

--20cf300faf7d6e15a0049efaf71d--

From pars.mutaf@gmail.com  Mon Mar 21 04:05:07 2011
Return-Path: <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D4A3A6825 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 04:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LwLXHBEPqhKf for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 04:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A8ED3A6823 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 04:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so4392769qyk.10 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 04:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=FDaS0ifBJFszBvmFPpRh94w7DMP3x10lmejBYtyQi3I=; b=ftNer8Z6WDfa7RLH4VcW34H8J8YRXlT6VilWdfwJ0P5dbqDX7eEquCHu0FOJ+ZqL0H kWrQlBXx++4s4yTvQYfwq7BaEfHXnYmBGy8WYEIT0iInzv2o4QuyPM+yxtNGfOaHamiw oiaDk6HBzHJXBghYIEjpHdiaHsC/bbscytq8U=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=bU2PcCQ3HNAd4bwTy+IDzrNGKZuwX0P/mLs++ocSbGpE4u1IPjbJnBhR48jWqKHvOd 6Ep6UrwUTtPRoOl3hPF59fbE0uyLjbnOMgWxXLwH7sEGpZJsSEX4QpfiXiJRp5FyTadQ w6xAVTeKcVYBGcWTHl3xWh1UQSChX6pup3q6A=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.40.208 with SMTP id l16mr3170178qae.72.1300705598180; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 04:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.67.13 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 04:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikW+MfR_R4A+g2+o=BZDnsAoOmfLHNgiOm4Z_-n@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikW+MfR_R4A+g2+o=BZDnsAoOmfLHNgiOm4Z_-n@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:06:38 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikGc4JDgzBivYQNGfPTzf8r75L_od2etQMq3Rm5@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: mext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485eba59c230f2e049efc1f72
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:05:07 -0000

--001485eba59c230f2e049efc1f72
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Some details that may not be obvious:

The victim consumes energy for:

- Receiving the messages (continuously waking up from sleep mode)
- Processing them and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)
- Sending replies (L2 ACKs and upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)

Sending replies especially consumes more energy. It was shown that in 802.11
sending 1 bit over the air consumes as much as executing 1,000 CPU
instructions.

Regards,

Pars


On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on battery
> powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 community.
>
> The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. SIP INVITE or
> TCP SYN to a victim's home address.
>
> For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with
> 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks on
> phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumption
> because of the longer distance to the base station.
>
> The victim becomes unusable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pars
>

--001485eba59c230f2e049efc1f72
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Some details that may not be obvious: <br><br>The victim consumes energy fo=
r:<br><br>- Receiving the messages (continuously waking up from sleep mode)=
<br>- Processing them and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)<br>- Sending =
replies (L2 ACKs and upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)<br>
<br>Sending replies especially consumes more energy. It was shown that in 8=
02.11 sending 1 bit over the air consumes as much as executing 1,000 CPU in=
structions. <br><br>Regards, <br><br>Pars<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote">
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pars Mutaf <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.com">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:=
<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello, <br><br>I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks o=
n battery powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 com=
munity. <br><br>The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g=
. SIP INVITE or TCP SYN to a victim&#39;s home address. <br>

<br>For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with=
 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks =
on phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumpti=
on because of the longer distance to the base station. <br>

<br>The victim becomes unusable.<br><br>Regards, <br><font color=3D"#888888=
"><br>Pars<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>

--001485eba59c230f2e049efc1f72--

From xiayangsong@huawei.com  Mon Mar 21 10:15:25 2011
Return-Path: <xiayangsong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C5A3A68BC for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zWqftMNX+X3J for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F54D3A68B3 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LIF009SK4086G@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:16:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.9.108]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug  8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LIF00915407ZJ@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:16:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:16:56 -0700
Received: from DFWEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.47]) by DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:16:55 -0700
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:16:54 +0000
From: xiayangsong <xiayangsong@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4D84DC78.4070108@gmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.193.34.151]
To: Tomasz Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Message-id: <CB60645E6241144CB82269604373757AE6DE68@dfweml503-mbx.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Accept-Language: en-US
Thread-topic: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments
Thread-index: AQHL5lRvOix09ntpbEWDfitJ9O/U6JQ4CNEg
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
References: <4D8283DF.7030702@gmail.com> <CB60645E6241144CB82269604373757AE6D72F@dfweml503-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4D84DC78.4070108@gmail.com>
Cc: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>, MEXT WG <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:15:25 -0000

Hi Tomek

Thank your response. 
Please check my comments inline.

BR
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Tomasz Mrugalski [mailto:tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:40 AM
To: xiayangsong
Cc: MEXT WG; Behcet Sarikaya
Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01 and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 comments

On 2011-03-18 00:13, xiayangsong wrote:
> Please see my inline comments...
> 
> BR
> Frank

> I think Ted's major objection was Section 4.2, where DSMIPv6 Relay
> Agent Option is defined. Why do you need this option for? What options
> is it supposed to carry? Are you expecting it to convey DHCPv6 options,
> as defined in mip6-hiopt-17? That would be wrong on many levels. You
> would encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options. DHCPv4 clients
> typically don't have parsing capabilities of DHCPv6 option formats.
> Frank=>Just I explained aforementioned, we need define DHCPv4 option for
> carrying home agents information(such as IPv6 addresses). We can't encapsulate
> DHCPv6 suboptions into DHCPv4 options because the client is DHCPv4 only.
Agree. I maybe didn't express myself clearly. DHCPv6 options must not be
encapsulated in DHCPv4 options.
Frank=>Agree.

Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the authors, so let me explain how I
read the draft: draft-xia-mext-hioptv4-01, section 4.2 defines DSMIPv6
Relay Agent Option (a DHCPv4 Option) that contains sub-options field.
Its content is defined as "A series of sub-options as specified in
I-D.ietf-mip6-hiopt". ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 defines couple DHCPv6 options.
I'm not sure how can this be interpreted otherwise than an attempt to
encapsulate DHCPv6 suboptions within DHCPv4 option.
Frank=>Sorry for the confusion we introduced. Actually, we related our
draft to ietf-mip6-hiopt-17 just because they have similar scenarios.
Our draft was supposed to define an independent set of DHCPv4 options.

> At current form, this draft is unclear at best. Who is including
> OPTION_DSMIP6_RELAY option? Relay?
> Frank=>Access routers as DHCP relay and DHCPv4 servers includes the option.
I think this should be clarified in the draft.
Frank=>We will add this.

Hope that helps,
Tomek

From qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg  Mon Mar 21 20:03:50 2011
Return-Path: <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5609928C1D3 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O+1gqVMfffOR for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw3.scei.a-star.edu.sg (gw3.scei.a-star.edu.sg [192.122.140.12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A6528C1DA for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailfe01.teak.local.net ([10.217.253.173]) by gw3.scei.a-star.edu.sg (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2M35Egg003642;  Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:05:14 +0800
Received: from Win7PC ([10.217.141.158]) by mailfe01.teak.local.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:04:30 +0800
From: "QIU Ying" <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg>
To: "'Pars Mutaf'" <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>, <mext@ietf.org>
References: <AANLkTikW+MfR_R4A+g2+o=BZDnsAoOmfLHNgiOm4Z_-n@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikGc4JDgzBivYQNGfPTzf8r75L_od2etQMq3Rm5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikGc4JDgzBivYQNGfPTzf8r75L_od2etQMq3Rm5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:05:21 +0800
Message-ID: <008c01cbe83d$fb4763c0$f1d62b40$@a-star.edu.sg>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008D_01CBE881.096AA3C0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acvnt/jWhsrWdCKVSeOOLDluOTTX6wAhJpXw
Content-Language: en-sg
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2011 03:04:30.0657 (UTC) FILETIME=[DCE0F310:01CBE83D]
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15, 1.0.148, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-03-22_01:2011-03-16, 2011-03-22, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-1012030000 definitions=main-1103210204
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:03:50 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_008D_01CBE881.096AA3C0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"

This topic is interesting. 

 

But I am afraid that there is an efficient way to prevent this kind of DOS
attacks because the mobile node must wake up from sleep to receive and
process these required messages before simply drop them.

 

Could you please provide more details?

 

Regards

Qiu Ying

 

 

From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pars
Mutaf
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 7:07 PM
To: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks

 

Some details that may not be obvious: 

The victim consumes energy for:

- Receiving the messages (continuously waking up from sleep mode)
- Processing them and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)
- Sending replies (L2 ACKs and upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)

Sending replies especially consumes more energy. It was shown that in 802.11
sending 1 bit over the air consumes as much as executing 1,000 CPU
instructions. 

Regards, 

Pars



On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello, 

I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on battery
powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 community. 

The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. SIP INVITE or
TCP SYN to a victim's home address. 

For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with
802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks on
phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumption
because of the longer distance to the base station. 

The victim becomes unusable.

Regards, 

Pars

 

Institute for Infocomm Research disclaimer:  "This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately. Please do not copy or use it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you."

------=_NextPart_000_008D_01CBE881.096AA3C0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p=3D"urn:schemas-m=
icrosoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office=
:access" xmlns:dt=3D"uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s=3D"=
uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs=3D"urn:schemas-microsof=
t-com:rowset" xmlns:z=3D"#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-co=
m:office:publisher" xmlns:ss=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadshee=
t" xmlns:c=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns=
:odc=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa=3D"urn:schemas-micro=
soft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" =
xmlns:q=3D"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc=3D"http://m=
icrosoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D=3D"DAV:" xmlns:Repl=3D"http://=
schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/share=
point/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel=
/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda=3D"http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois=
=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir=3D"http://=
schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds=3D"http://www.w3=
.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint=
/dsp" xmlns:udc=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd=3D"http=
://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sha=
repoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#"=
 xmlns:sp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps=3D"http://=
schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001=
/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/so=
ap" xmlns:udcxf=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udc=
p2p=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf=3D"http:/=
/schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss=3D"http://sche=
mas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi=3D"http://schemas.mi=
crosoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformat=
s.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver=3D"http://schemas.openxmlf=
ormats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.c=
om/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/pa=
ckage/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp=3D"http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/web=
partpages" xmlns:ex12t=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/20=
06/types" xmlns:ex12m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/200=
6/messages" xmlns:pptsl=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/Sli=
deLibrary/" xmlns:spsl=3D"http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortal=
Server/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:=
st=3D"&#1;" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equi=
v=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGen=
erator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:SimSun;
	panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:SimSun;
	panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-AU link=3Dblue vli=
nk=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'f=
ont-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This topi=
c is interesting. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D=
'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p>&n=
bsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;f=
ont-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>But I am afraid that there=
 is an efficient way to prevent this kind of DOS attacks because the mobile=
 node must wake up from sleep to receive and process these required message=
s before simply drop them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'=
><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:=
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Could you please p=
rovide more details?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=
=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p=
>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0p=
t;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></spa=
n></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cal=
ibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Qiu Ying<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D=
MsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif=
";color:#1F497D'> &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><span st=
yle=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><=
o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><div style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue=
 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><div style=3D'border:none;border-top=
:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=3DMsoNormal><b><sp=
an lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"=
'>From:</span></b><span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:=
"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org=
] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Pars Mutaf<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 21, 2011 7:0=
7 PM<br><b>To:</b> mext@ietf.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [MEXT] Energy consu=
mption attacks<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&=
nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Some det=
ails that may not be obvious: <br><br>The victim consumes energy for:<br><b=
r>- Receiving the messages (continuously waking up from sleep mode)<br>- Pr=
ocessing them and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)<br>- Sending replies =
(L2 ACKs and upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)<br><br>Sending re=
plies especially consumes more energy. It was shown that in 802.11 sending =
1 bit over the air consumes as much as executing 1,000 CPU instructions. <b=
r><br>Regards, <br><br>Pars<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal=
>On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pars Mutaf &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pars.mu=
taf@gmail.com">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=
=3DMsoNormal>Hello, <br><br>I was wondering if solutions to energy consumpt=
ion attacks on battery powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mo=
bile IPv6 community. <br><br>The attack consists of sending frequent reques=
t packets e.g. SIP INVITE or TCP SYN to a victim's home address. <br><br>Fo=
r example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with 802.1=
1 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks on pho=
nes using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumption bec=
ause of the longer distance to the base station. <br><br>The victim becomes=
 unusable.<br><br>Regards, <br><span style=3D'color:#888888'><br>Pars</span=
><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p></div></div>
<DIV>
Institute for Infocomm Research disclaimer:  &quot;This email is confidenti=
al and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please del=
ete it and notify us immediately. Please do not copy or use it for any purp=
ose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you.&quot;<BR>
</DIV></body></html>

------=_NextPart_000_008D_01CBE881.096AA3C0--


From julien.ietf@gmail.com  Mon Mar 21 20:26:10 2011
Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1BD28C1DB for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.3
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kqtSyKHD5EVY for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C5E28C112 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so6574226fxm.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2RH9v6YQemSbHanqDAlhSSwKrr/YeK60oqnqGeJ1/hc=; b=tdCCNLyjEpQmdD24tuReMjrEFmqUooW0GLQpZFiHfV3RM0Yz8wlLolkpeR5R+YVkxL BJ3O+BpqO5HYAnzc7Ah5vC6wXqUua1tRYDL7NTBiehtn5iVmP81CdcT09asbks0C5q6b YgHatwKOvj/Iod7EsUPv8Zj+H6bGkMLEr+1C4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Mkp3Yw0lP4yVGZSPKYLYLNbcn9wbQpVHQXLDSXcdZUYvVJjhWy1uH9w6CiLvPNSUZu U0vDfvXaF+h9c7TcA7v6LatcJFsHuPGW78AAt8fdcC8e+EYpn/uZIRqZIicr8J9mDLUe eIpEQBekygEzWdqKE3jegYHrWuyr51BoQD5iA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.78.201 with SMTP id m9mr1306998fak.20.1300764461873; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.78.135 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikW+MfR_R4A+g2+o=BZDnsAoOmfLHNgiOm4Z_-n@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikW+MfR_R4A+g2+o=BZDnsAoOmfLHNgiOm4Z_-n@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:27:41 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikxc0=p-HAqJ--ZFBQgFEpFw-tit_M5CPH8zoqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:26:11 -0000

Pars -

How is this attack related to MIPv6?

--julien

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on battery
> powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 community.
>
> The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. SIP INVITE or
> TCP SYN to a victim's home address.
>
> For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with
> 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks on
> phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumption
> because of the longer distance to the base station.
>
> The victim becomes unusable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pars
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
>

From pars.mutaf@gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 01:28:48 2011
Return-Path: <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356233A67B4 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bhsnmsVnkCDV for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73CC3A67AF for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:28:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so5247288qyk.10 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7gReevYGd4gc/Smxv988ZERP5lfanrsG5aZ9IUwl1RU=; b=jE7DRY1KSnZMNCH2iYI8FIA/GmA++GuBCqMLgJX78XwXS2GxUQz3kfAXrsPKSmb1Iu 2omnmxTZtESC8HG5t3wCiiUDdfQyHpwddS/gE5MhOAYxxqCflTjOXmMZgbmUjQq+8fmY Amq7FVqSymv80FCWbOqYLiICwqiwne/0Ilj1Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=cAj+pb/CbUgYhQM7xHPRG6cvcHZNKjsccW9QvcXSPoFbOh+k/212UGx5D9TuS+WhsG 5CIzM12hRgDrcQZPF7PcK//VlWGs3CBWNCy2RYHWlqeVr8PvFKYpTW+yHyI8cC9bxUXg knxZsl4G2PeEUGiWelMI8P439uhFI0FImXpVM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.55.212 with SMTP id v20mr4545740qag.22.1300782619520; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.67.13 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <008c01cbe83d$fb4763c0$f1d62b40$@a-star.edu.sg>
References: <AANLkTikW+MfR_R4A+g2+o=BZDnsAoOmfLHNgiOm4Z_-n@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikGc4JDgzBivYQNGfPTzf8r75L_od2etQMq3Rm5@mail.gmail.com> <008c01cbe83d$fb4763c0$f1d62b40$@a-star.edu.sg>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:30:19 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikeEOd_-w9GrSNX8keajJ-iizEiht8h36Q1fZ-B@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: QIU Ying <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f2ca38f77ee0049f0e0d27
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:28:48 -0000

--001485f2ca38f77ee0049f0e0d27
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Qiu,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:05 AM, QIU Ying <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg> wrote:

> This topic is interesting.
>
>
>
> But I am afraid that there is an efficient way to prevent this kind of DOS
> attacks because the mobile node must wake up from sleep to receive and
> process these required messages before simply drop them.
>
>
>
> Could you please provide more details?
>
>
>

I am not entering in the solution space, various solutions may be possible.
You cannot simply drop the incoming packets as you suggested because you
would become unreachable in this case. The attacker can spoof source IP
addresses so you cannot differentiate between malicious and legitimate
packets.

Regards,

Pars



> Regards
>
> Qiu Ying
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Pars Mutaf
> *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 7:07 PM
> *To:* mext@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
>
>
>
> Some details that may not be obvious:
>
> The victim consumes energy for:
>
> - Receiving the messages (continuously waking up from sleep mode)
> - Processing them and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)
> - Sending replies (L2 ACKs and upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)
>
> Sending replies especially consumes more energy. It was shown that in
> 802.11 sending 1 bit over the air consumes as much as executing 1,000 CPU
> instructions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pars
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on battery
> powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 community.
>
> The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. SIP INVITE or
> TCP SYN to a victim's home address.
>
> For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with
> 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks on
> phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumption
> because of the longer distance to the base station.
>
> The victim becomes unusable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pars
>
>
>  Institute for Infocomm Research disclaimer: "This email is confidential
> and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete
> it and notify us immediately. Please do not copy or use it for any purpose,
> or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you."
>

--001485f2ca38f77ee0049f0e0d27
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Qiu, <br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:05 AM,=
 QIU Ying <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg=
">qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(=
204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-AU"><div><p class=3D"MsoNorm=
al"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">This topic is=
 interesting. </span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 1=
1pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">=A0</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">But I am afraid that there is an efficient way to prevent this kind o=
f DOS attacks because the mobile node must wake up from sleep to receive an=
d process these required messages before simply drop them.</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">=A0</span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; =
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Could you please provide more details?</span></p>=
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">
<span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">=A0</span></p></d=
iv></div></blockquote><div><br>I am not entering in the solution space, var=
ious solutions may be possible. You cannot simply drop the incoming packets=
 as you suggested because you would become unreachable in this case. The at=
tacker can spoof source IP addresses so you cannot differentiate between ma=
licious and legitimate packets.<br>
<br>Regards, <br><br>Pars<br><br>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 2=
04); padding-left: 1ex;"><div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-AU"=
><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">
<span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Regards</span></p=
><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, =
125);">Qiu Ying</span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: =
11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> =A0</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">=A0</span></p><div style=3D"border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt;=
 border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz=
-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 4pt;">
<div><div style=3D"border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid non=
e none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-=
color; padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm;"><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font=
-size: 10pt;" lang=3D"EN-US">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt=
;" lang=3D"EN-US"> <a href=3D"mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">mext-bounces@ietf.org</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.or=
g" target=3D"_blank">mext-bounces@ietf.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Pars Mu=
taf<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 21, 2011 7:07 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto=
:mext@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">mext@ietf.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: =
[MEXT] Energy consumption attacks</span></p></div></div><div><div></div><di=
v class=3D"h5">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0</p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom=
: 12pt;">Some details that may not be obvious: <br><br>The victim consumes =
energy for:<br><br>- Receiving the messages (continuously waking up from sl=
eep mode)<br>
- Processing them and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)<br>- Sending repl=
ies (L2 ACKs and upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)<br><br>Sendin=
g replies especially consumes more energy. It was shown that in 802.11 send=
ing 1 bit over the air consumes as much as executing 1,000 CPU instructions=
. <br>
<br>Regards, <br><br>Pars<br><br></p><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Mon, Ma=
r 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pars Mutaf &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.c=
om" target=3D"_blank">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</p><p class=3D"Ms=
oNormal">
Hello, <br><br>I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks o=
n battery powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 com=
munity. <br><br>The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g=
. SIP INVITE or TCP SYN to a victim&#39;s home address. <br>
<br>For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with=
 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks =
on phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumpti=
on because of the longer distance to the base station. <br>
<br>The victim becomes unusable.<br><br>Regards, <br><span style=3D"color: =
rgb(136, 136, 136);"><br>Pars</span></p></div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0</p=
></div></div></div></div>
<div>
Institute for Infocomm Research disclaimer:  &quot;This email is confidenti=
al and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please del=
ete it and notify us immediately. Please do not copy or use it for any purp=
ose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you.&quot;<br>

</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>

--001485f2ca38f77ee0049f0e0d27--

From pars.mutaf@gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 01:58:21 2011
Return-Path: <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164923A67D4 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hLTZnIftQmHb for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2153A67AA for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so5680989qwg.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=so3+LxTEAH0lksUl41iQ0G8H3nYIjCfKrH336N+T7yk=; b=epEiH7Zq0IRFJN7X/Ap3ZWijFqReC0WDA0WZdeeg0FZzll1xhapiyRgkf6427vQ0kn D6Zv+alk6SSvTbNRAa2v+UpgRvH3Nb1TWdzzoWvxry/a0b4jJRQgf7+fDfJn8+TkuzH0 ehFvq5a5lvLKdfgm7oJDLuONIHTtnQybcVU5E=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=g1gMkAavaGrO/4hMYDUT2ov68InA/KpxRcGm35dVq/mm3+IcQ3SGceMxng0mmoz5BR I0yqAKOEC6RrPKIE6d/RL43bOkk3HrmXgMi5kyfHnqBaFiR2J+ehCjBGI6NIrqzWwtd+ sNsfNwU0JQkNirkl1fmzApGGOztKS5B8X1dSE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.201.74 with SMTP id ez10mr4431851qab.372.1300784392382; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.67.13 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikxc0=p-HAqJ--ZFBQgFEpFw-tit_M5CPH8zoqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikW+MfR_R4A+g2+o=BZDnsAoOmfLHNgiOm4Z_-n@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikxc0=p-HAqJ--ZFBQgFEpFw-tit_M5CPH8zoqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:59:52 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2fkBtnf5TG6BANuHPJoN01jd4fNTV1itcE4aA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300faf75a32814049f0e7720
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:58:21 -0000

--20cf300faf75a32814049f0e7720
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Julien,

MIPv6 is mostly about battery powered mobile hosts, so I think this topic
should be of interest to Mobile IPv6 community. Secondly, when you think
about solutions, you may realize that it is an IP layer problem. Any upper
layer host identifier (FQDN or SIP URI etc) would be resolved to the "fixed"
home address of the mobile host and once the attacker has learned it, the
attack is possible. The attacker can remotely consume the victim's energy.
Application layer solutions like spam filtering would be useless because the
attacker is simply sending bogus packets, not even opening sessions.

In fact, we may expand the problem space since there may be other problems
due to having a fixed MIPv6 home address. But I think the remote energy
consumption attack is the most serious one. Serious design efforts are being
made at MAC layer to enable energy conserving sleep mode. The attack would
not only foil these efforts, but also consume energy by "forcing" the victim
to reply to frequent malicious packets purportedly coming from random IP
addresses.

Thanks,

Pars

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>wrote:

> Pars -
>
> How is this attack related to MIPv6?
>
> --julien
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on battery
> > powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 community.
> >
> > The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. SIP INVITE
> or
> > TCP SYN to a victim's home address.
> >
> > For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with
> > 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks
> on
> > phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy
> consumption
> > because of the longer distance to the base station.
> >
> > The victim becomes unusable.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Pars
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MEXT mailing list
> > MEXT@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >
> >
>

--20cf300faf75a32814049f0e7720
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Julien, <br><br>MIPv6 is mostly about battery powered mobile hosts, so I=
 think this topic should be of interest to Mobile IPv6 community. Secondly,=
 when you think about solutions, you may realize that it is an IP layer pro=
blem. Any upper layer host identifier (FQDN or SIP URI etc) would be resolv=
ed to the &quot;fixed&quot; home address of the mobile host and once the at=
tacker has learned it, the attack is possible. The attacker can remotely co=
nsume the victim&#39;s energy. Application layer solutions like spam filter=
ing would be useless because the attacker is simply sending bogus packets, =
not even opening sessions. <br>
<br>In fact, we may expand the problem space since there may be other probl=
ems due to having a fixed MIPv6 home address. But I think the remote energy=
 consumption attack is the most serious one. Serious design efforts are bei=
ng made at MAC layer to enable energy conserving sleep mode. The attack wou=
ld not only foil these efforts, but also consume energy by &quot;forcing&qu=
ot; the victim to reply to frequent malicious packets purportedly coming fr=
om random IP addresses. <br>
<br>Thanks, <br><br>Pars<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 22, =
2011 at 5:27 AM, Julien Laganier <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ju=
lien.ietf@gmail.com">julien.ietf@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left:=
 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Pars -<br>
<br>
How is this attack related to MIPv6?<br>
<br>
--julien<br>
<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pars Mutaf &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pars.muta=
f@gmail.com">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; Hello,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on battery<=
br>
&gt; powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 communit=
y.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. SIP INVIT=
E or<br>
&gt; TCP SYN to a victim&#39;s home address.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone wit=
h<br>
&gt; 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Atta=
cks on<br>
&gt; phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consump=
tion<br>
&gt; because of the longer distance to the base station.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The victim becomes unusable.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Regards,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Pars<br>
&gt;<br>
</div></div>&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; MEXT mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:MEXT@ietf.org">MEXT@ietf.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
</blockquote></div><br>

--20cf300faf75a32814049f0e7720--

From marcelo@it.uc3m.es  Tue Mar 22 07:05:00 2011
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD2F28C0EC for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uQto0eTczrkR for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1526B28C0D0 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (wlap005.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD472BF5402 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:06:30 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:06:30 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext@ietf.org
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>	<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es> <4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18026.007
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:05:00 -0000

Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about the Mobile IP 
protocol.


El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
> Marcelo, Hi,
>
> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's request of
> agenda item.
>
> The current agenda
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>
> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related to the Mobile
> IPv6 protocol per se.  Additionally, agenda's DMM core item has a
> discussion which does not seem to converge on the use of Mobile IPv6.
>
> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of MEXT doing _only_
> Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I see it today.
>
> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is related to IKE
> which is related to Mobile IPv6 security.
>
> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly.  I am saying
> this because...
>
> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do (RA-based routing)
> for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run Mobile IPv6 but need something
> else than Mobile IPv6 Type Codes.
>
> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning, thanks.
>
> Alex
>
> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited to the the
>> Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we decline your request.
>>
>> Regards, marcelo
>>
>>
>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>>
>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach to mobility
>>> management known as IRON:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>>
>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been published as an
>>> experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing Research Group:
>>>
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>>
>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are documented in the
>>>  following active Internet drafts:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>>
>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present the
>>> approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
>>>
>>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: mext-bounces@ietf.org
>>>> [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo
>>>> braun Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM To: mext Subject:
>>>> [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>>>
>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
>>>> please note that we are meeting on friday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 07:33:53 2011
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9758028C128 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Vk2xj5W1mwj for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB3728C127 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p2MEZHNr029221 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:35:17 +0100
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2MEZHxC019129; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:35:17 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [132.166.133.178] ([132.166.133.178]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p2MEZHPq019278; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:35:17 +0100
Message-ID: <4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:35:17 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext@ietf.org
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>	<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>	<4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com> <4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:33:53 -0000

Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about the Mobile IP
> protocol.

The 6th.

Alex

>
>
> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>> Marcelo, Hi,
>>
>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's request of
>> agenda item.
>>
>> The current agenda
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>>
>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related to the Mobile
>> IPv6 protocol per se. Additionally, agenda's DMM core item has a
>> discussion which does not seem to converge on the use of Mobile IPv6.
>>
>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of MEXT doing _only_
>> Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I see it today.
>>
>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is related to IKE
>> which is related to Mobile IPv6 security.
>>
>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly. I am saying
>> this because...
>>
>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do (RA-based routing)
>> for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run Mobile IPv6 but need something
>> else than Mobile IPv6 Type Codes.
>>
>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning, thanks.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>> Hi Fred,
>>>
>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited to the the
>>> Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we decline your request.
>>>
>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>
>>>
>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>>>
>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach to mobility
>>>> management known as IRON:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>>>
>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been published as an
>>>> experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing Research Group:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>>>
>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are documented in the
>>>> following active Internet drafts:
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present the
>>>> approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
>>>>
>>>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: mext-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>> [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo
>>>>> braun Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM To: mext Subject:
>>>>> [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>>>>
>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
>>>>> please note that we are meeting on friday.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From marcelo@it.uc3m.es  Tue Mar 22 07:51:13 2011
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038FA28C13B for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tteIvKwROXqZ for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A988F28C137 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (wlap005.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0541472D1D8 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:52:38 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:52:37 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext@ietf.org
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>	<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>	<4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>	<4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es> <4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18026.007
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:51:13 -0000

so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non MIP 
related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to just one 
single agenda item... great, it seems we are making good progress here.

about the particular item you mention: i understand this is the 
motivation for the dmm work and understanding the perceived probelms is 
needed to figure out how we can use MIP to deal with the perceived problem.

However, if people think this is out of scope for MEXT, i am fine to 
discuss whether we should keep it in the agenda or not





El 22/03/11 15:35, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
> Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about the Mobile IP
>> protocol.
>
> The 6th.
>
> Alex
>
>>
>>
>> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>> Marcelo, Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's request of
>>> agenda item.
>>>
>>> The current agenda
>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>>>
>>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related to the Mobile
>>> IPv6 protocol per se. Additionally, agenda's DMM core item has a
>>> discussion which does not seem to converge on the use of Mobile IPv6.
>>>
>>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of MEXT doing 
>>> _only_
>>> Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I see it today.
>>>
>>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is related to 
>>> IKE
>>> which is related to Mobile IPv6 security.
>>>
>>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly. I am saying
>>> this because...
>>>
>>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do (RA-based 
>>> routing)
>>> for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run Mobile IPv6 but need something
>>> else than Mobile IPv6 Type Codes.
>>>
>>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning, thanks.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>> Hi Fred,
>>>>
>>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited to the the
>>>> Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we decline your request.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
>>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>>>>
>>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach to mobility
>>>>> management known as IRON:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been published as an
>>>>> experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing Research Group:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are documented in the
>>>>> following active Internet drafts:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present the
>>>>> approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: mext-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>>> [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo
>>>>>> braun Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM To: mext Subject:
>>>>>> [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
>>>>>> please note that we are meeting on friday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>>>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MEXT mailing list
>>> MEXT@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com  Tue Mar 22 07:57:47 2011
Return-Path: <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57FE28C13D for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.051
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.051 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.198,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T0R924Qcj3Np for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7D128C137 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 07:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C1E4C6F8001; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:59:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28816C0001; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:59:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:59:11 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:59:10 +0100
Message-ID: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C4620195491C@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
Thread-Index: AcvooNg9hRpSVZEnQ4yLdUcidIcPBQAAEC6g
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>	<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>	<4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>	<4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es><4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com> <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es>
From: <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, <mext@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2011 14:59:11.0700 (UTC) FILETIME=[B3F8D940:01CBE8A1]
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:57:47 -0000

Hi,

In Beijing, many questions was about motivation for distribution of =
mobility management. So, worth to be discussed in Prague.

Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De=A0: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part =
de
> marcelo bagnulo braun
> Envoy=E9=A0: mardi 22 mars 2011 15:53
> =C0=A0: mext@ietf.org
> Objet=A0: Re: [MEXT] FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>=20
> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non MIP
> related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to just one
> single agenda item... great, it seems we are making good progress =
here.
>=20
> about the particular item you mention: i understand this is the
> motivation for the dmm work and understanding the perceived probelms =
is
> needed to figure out how we can use MIP to deal with the perceived =
problem.
>=20
> However, if people think this is out of scope for MEXT, i am fine to
> discuss whether we should keep it in the agenda or not
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> El 22/03/11 15:35, Alexandru Petrescu escribi=F3:
> > Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a =E9crit :
> >> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about the =
Mobile IP
> >> protocol.
> >
> > The 6th.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribi=F3:
> >>> Marcelo, Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's request =
of
> >>> agenda item.
> >>>
> >>> The current agenda
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
> >>>
> >>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related to the
> Mobile
> >>> IPv6 protocol per se. Additionally, agenda's DMM core item has a
> >>> discussion which does not seem to converge on the use of Mobile =
IPv6.
> >>>
> >>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of MEXT doing
> >>> _only_
> >>> Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I see it today.
> >>>
> >>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is related =
to
> >>> IKE
> >>> which is related to Mobile IPv6 security.
> >>>
> >>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly. I am =
saying
> >>> this because...
> >>>
> >>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do (RA-based
> >>> routing)
> >>> for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run Mobile IPv6 but need =
something
> >>> else than Mobile IPv6 Type Codes.
> >>>
> >>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning, thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Alex
> >>>
> >>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a =E9crit :
> >>>> Hi Fred,
> >>>>
> >>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited to the =
the
> >>>> Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we decline your request.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards, marcelo
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribi=F3:
> >>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach to =
mobility
> >>>>> management known as IRON:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been published as an
> >>>>> experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing Research Group:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are documented in =
the
> >>>>> following active Internet drafts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
> >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
> >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
> >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present the
> >>>>> approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: mext-bounces@ietf.org
> >>>>>> [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo
> >>>>>> braun Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM To: mext Subject:
> >>>>>> [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague meeting
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the chairs.
> >>>>>> please note that we are meeting on friday.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
> >>>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
> >>>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> MEXT mailing list
> >>> MEXT@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MEXT mailing list
> >> MEXT@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MEXT mailing list
> > MEXT@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 08:36:07 2011
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A238A28C12E for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 56-UEUG2nKjl for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.144]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B5D28C0D6 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p2MFbV8G005843 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:37:31 +0100
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2MFbVan013218; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:37:31 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [132.166.133.178] ([132.166.133.178]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p2MFbV2p020938; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:37:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:37:31 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext@ietf.org
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>	<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>	<4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>	<4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com> <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:36:07 -0000

Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non MIP
> related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to just one
> single agenda item...

You asked one, I told one.

Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS is not a
MIP6 Type Code, etc.)

> great, it seems we are making good progress here.
>
> about the particular item you mention: i understand this is the
> motivation for the dmm work and understanding the perceived probelms
> is needed to figure out how we can use MIP to deal with the
> perceived problem.
>
>
> However, if people think this is out of scope for MEXT, i am fine to
> discuss whether we should keep it in the agenda or not

I think it is worth discussing how much relationship do the current
agenda items have to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, and whether that
relationship is as much as other agenda requests.

Alex

>
>
>
>
>
> El 22/03/11 15:35, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>> Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about the
>>> Mobile IP protocol.
>>
>> The 6th.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>>> Marcelo, Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's
>>>> request of agenda item.
>>>>
>>>> The current agenda
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>>>>
>>>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related to
>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol per se. Additionally, agenda's DMM
>>>> core item has a discussion which does not seem to converge on
>>>> the use of Mobile IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of MEXT
>>>> doing _only_ Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I see it
>>>> today.
>>>>
>>>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is
>>>> related to IKE which is related to Mobile IPv6 security.
>>>>
>>>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly. I am
>>>> saying this because...
>>>>
>>>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do
>>>> (RA-based routing) for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run
>>>> Mobile IPv6 but need something else than Mobile IPv6 Type
>>>> Codes.
>>>>
>>>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning,
>>>> thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>>> Hi Fred,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited
>>>>> to the the Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we decline your
>>>>> request.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
>>>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach to
>>>>>> mobility management known as IRON:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been published
>>>>>> as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing Research Group:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are
>>>>>> documented in the following active Internet drafts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present the
>>>>>>  approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: mext-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of marcelo
>>>>>>> bagnulo braun Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM
>>>>>>> To: mext Subject: [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague
>>>>>>> meeting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the
>>>>>>> chairs. please note that we are meeting on friday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com  Tue Mar 22 09:40:38 2011
Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E0428C0E2 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.555
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K3IcOxGFGYQm for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C158428C0E1 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p2MGg3eO019876; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:42:07 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:42:05 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.57) by NOK-am1MHUB-01.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:42:05 +0100
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.5.127]) by 008-AM1MMR1-002.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.57]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.002; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:42:00 +0100
From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
To: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, <mext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
Thread-Index: Acved6zKVKr4jJqSRfyzr1aOXtHvLgAGVLigAPfp4XAAACH8AAEj3FyAAGRVSAAAAQFYgAAAmvmAAAGRb4D//74tAA==
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:41:59 +0000
Message-ID: <C9AE3A99.1221F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115
x-originating-ip: [172.19.59.28]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <E570A4F0741E7C4B89C5B2F248868F6B@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2011 16:42:05.0421 (UTC) FILETIME=[13CBE9D0:01CBE8B0]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:40:38 -0000

Alex,


On 3/22/11 10:37 AM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu"
<alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

>Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a =E9crit :
>> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non MIP
>> related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to just one
>> single agenda item...
>
>You asked one, I told one.
>
>Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS is not a
>MIP6 Type Code, etc.)

Over the past several meetings we have discussed the idea of creating
alternate security frameworks for Mobile IPv6. The WG was rechartered
subsequently. Please see the following in the charter:
"The MEXT WG will also explore experimental alternative security
mechanisms.=20
"
I-D draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-00.txt is a different security framework
which uses HAC and TLS in its scope.

-Raj


From marcelo@it.uc3m.es  Tue Mar 22 09:44:09 2011
Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C80128C0D6 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.295
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.304, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wgzHIqOAKxvo for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082FA28C0E3 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro-2.local (46.30.18.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.18.30.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0658777AD for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:45:34 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:45:33 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mext@ietf.org
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>	<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>	<4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>	<4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com>	<4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es> <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.5.0.1024-18028.000
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:44:09 -0000

El 22/03/11 16:37, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
> Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non MIP
>> related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to just one
>> single agenda item...
>
> You asked one, I told one.
>
> Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS is not a
> MIP6 Type Code, etc.)
>

you mean the presentation of the draft entitled "Negotiation of security 
protocol for Mobile IPv6 operation" which in its 7 pages mentions the 
term Mobile IP over 24 times????, really?




>> great, it seems we are making good progress here.
>>
>> about the particular item you mention: i understand this is the
>> motivation for the dmm work and understanding the perceived probelms
>> is needed to figure out how we can use MIP to deal with the
>> perceived problem.
>>
>>
>> However, if people think this is out of scope for MEXT, i am fine to
>> discuss whether we should keep it in the agenda or not
>
> I think it is worth discussing how much relationship do the current
> agenda items have to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, and whether that
> relationship is as much as other agenda requests.
sure, that is what we are doing, but if your point is that 
draft-patil-mext-sec-negotiate-00.txt is as closely related to the MIPv6 
protocol as IRON, then i am not sure we may be able to find a common 
ground for understanding each other....

Regards, marcelo


>
> Alex
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> El 22/03/11 15:35, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>> Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about the
>>>> Mobile IP protocol.
>>>
>>> The 6th.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>>>> Marcelo, Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's
>>>>> request of agenda item.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current agenda
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related to
>>>>> the Mobile IPv6 protocol per se. Additionally, agenda's DMM
>>>>> core item has a discussion which does not seem to converge on
>>>>> the use of Mobile IPv6.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of MEXT
>>>>> doing _only_ Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I see it
>>>>> today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is
>>>>> related to IKE which is related to Mobile IPv6 security.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly. I am
>>>>> saying this because...
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do
>>>>> (RA-based routing) for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run
>>>>> Mobile IPv6 but need something else than Mobile IPv6 Type
>>>>> Codes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning,
>>>>> thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>>>> Hi Fred,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is limited
>>>>>> to the the Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we decline your
>>>>>> request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
>>>>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach to
>>>>>>> mobility management known as IRON:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been published
>>>>>>> as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing Research Group:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are
>>>>>>> documented in the following active Internet drafts:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present the
>>>>>>>  approach. Please let me know if that works for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: mext-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of marcelo
>>>>>>>> bagnulo braun Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:32 AM
>>>>>>>> To: mext Subject: [MEXT] Agenda requests for Prague
>>>>>>>> meeting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to the
>>>>>>>> chairs. please note that we are meeting on friday.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>>>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 12:44:00 2011
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C32A28C0EE for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.075
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.174,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pn6OMUC2CGlo for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880583A6846 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAC11940051; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:45:24 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:45:22 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>	<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>	<4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>	<4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com>	<4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com> <4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110322-0, 22/03/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes (was: FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting)
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:44:00 -0000

Le 22/03/2011 17:45, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
> El 22/03/11 16:37, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>> Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non
>>> MIP related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to
>>> just one single agenda item...
>>
>> You asked one, I told one.
>>
>> Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS is
>> not a MIP6 Type Code, etc.)
>>
>
> you mean the presentation of the draft entitled "Negotiation of
> security protocol for Mobile IPv6 operation" which in its 7 pages
> mentions the term Mobile IP over 24 times????, really?

Yes, I meant so, and here is why.

If I understand it correctly, HAC seems to be a new box with two
distinctive parts: one running a non-Mobile IP protocol (TLS tunnelled
Req/Resp, i.e. non Mobile IPv6) and another part which runs pure Mobile
IPv6 (BU/BAck).

Me too: my draft's MR has two distinctive parts: one running a
non-Mobile IP protocol (ICMPv6 extensions for prefixes, i.e. non Mobile
IPv6) and another part which runs pure Mobile IPv6 (BU/BAck with NEMOv6)
("MR" is all over the draft and its definition is that it runs Mobile
IPv6 with NEMOv6.)

(On another hand, e.g. draft-hampel-mext-ro-without-ha-00, another
agenda item, seems indeed to be modifications to the Mobile IPv6
protocol (new HoA Support Mobility Option in Mobility Header).  That
seems more appropriate to the MEXT agenda if MEXT is defined as being
Mobile IPv6-only work.)

That is why I think some items seem little appropriate to the agenda.

Or maybe MEXT is not only about modifications to Mobile IPv6 but it is
also something else, at which point more agenda items should be accepted
in all fairness.

>>> great, it seems we are making good progress here.
>>>
>>> about the particular item you mention: i understand this is the
>>> motivation for the dmm work and understanding the perceived
>>> probelms is needed to figure out how we can use MIP to deal with
>>>  the perceived problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, if people think this is out of scope for MEXT, i am fine
>>> to discuss whether we should keep it in the agenda or not
>>
>> I think it is worth discussing how much relationship do the
>> current agenda items have to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, and whether
>> that relationship is as much as other agenda requests.
>
> sure, that is what we are doing, but if your point is that
> draft-patil-mext-sec-negotiate-00.txt is as closely related to the
> MIPv6 protocol as IRON, then i am not sure we may be able to find a
> common ground for understanding each other....

I am trying to understand this.

I look at ironmike (IRON and MOBIKE) and it reads like using IKE for
supporting mobile nodes changing their addresses.  I think it could be
used together with Mobile IPv6: use MOBIKE mobility when in an IRON
domain or otherwise use Mobile IPv6 when handing over to the
non-IRON parts of Internet.

(I read "IRON tradespace" as I read "SDO")

I may not understand ironmike correctly, I just suppose.

IMHO.

Alex
[*] draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El 22/03/11 15:35, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>>> Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>>> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about
>>>>> the Mobile IP protocol.
>>>>
>>>> The 6th.
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>>>>> Marcelo, Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's
>>>>>> request of agenda item.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current agenda
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related
>>>>>> to the Mobile IPv6 protocol per se. Additionally, agenda's
>>>>>>  DMM core item has a discussion which does not seem to
>>>>>> converge on the use of Mobile IPv6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of
>>>>>> MEXT doing _only_ Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I
>>>>>> see it today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is
>>>>>> related to IKE which is related to Mobile IPv6 security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly. I
>>>>>> am saying this because...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do
>>>>>> (RA-based routing) for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run
>>>>>> Mobile IPv6 but need something else than Mobile IPv6 Type
>>>>>> Codes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning,
>>>>>> thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>>>>> Hi Fred,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is
>>>>>>> limited to the the Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we
>>>>>>> decline your request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
>>>>>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach
>>>>>>>> to mobility management known as IRON:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been
>>>>>>>> published as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing
>>>>>>>> Research Group:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are
>>>>>>>> documented in the following active Internet drafts:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present
>>>>>>>>  the approach. Please let me know if that works for
>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>>>>>>>> mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org]
>>>>>>>>>  On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun Sent: Wednesday,
>>>>>>>>>  March 09, 2011 8:32 AM To: mext Subject: [MEXT]
>>>>>>>>> Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to
>>>>>>>>> the chairs. please note that we are meeting on
>>>>>>>>> friday.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>>>  list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 13:07:28 2011
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4499B28C166 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.153,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LIlNijuBOIND for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500873A6783 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB349401CA; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:08:53 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D8901D4.7080502@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:08:52 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
References: <C9AE3A99.1221F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9AE3A99.1221F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110322-0, 22/03/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] FW:  Agenda requests for Prague meeting
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:07:28 -0000

Le 22/03/2011 17:41, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com a écrit :
>
> Alex,
>
>
> On 3/22/11 10:37 AM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu"
> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non
>>> MIP related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to
>>> just one single agenda item...
>>
>> You asked one, I told one.
>>
>> Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS is
>> not a MIP6 Type Code, etc.)
>
> Over the past several meetings we have discussed the idea of creating
> alternate security frameworks for Mobile IPv6. The WG was rechartered
> subsequently. Please see the following in the charter: "The MEXT WG
> will also explore experimental alternative security mechanisms. " I-D
> draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-00.txt is a different security framework
> which uses HAC and TLS in its scope.

Raj, thank you for clarifications.  I have indeed missed that draft.

I wonder whether it requires some modification to some RFC3775 Mobile
IPv6 message?  I am asking because I doubt so, hence my doubt about MEXT
doing only Mobile IPv6 work.

Anyways, what is a Mobile IPv6 draft?

- mention Mobile IPv6 label?
- extend a Mobile IPv6 message?
- encapsulate unmodified BU into other headers?
- able to run unmodified Mobile IPv6 in the same box running other
   protocol?

By some definition some agenda items apply others don't, I think.

Alex

>
> -Raj
>
>


From julien.ietf@gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 13:27:14 2011
Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0599928C170 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B-rVyJrl7uYF for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40FD28C13D for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb42 with SMTP id 42so7887219wyb.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=w+g6ljfuahNLj9n5VLeKVEoKPOjAw65vI0wmocVa+og=; b=TJsTjmxgVpRtHQW2I+/A/yyrHlANRuc28tZ8RPf6cBGAhX7nelJ8/uKmf3aMdC5gCh lm6/9uPZSSGkglJTmNoiZ/4hfV36S5zjwi4uDKLwgSpD/vjVrc/QjmoyAvaDnNV/kI8u a/p/XdeBjha+xsyq1YlM+URmt/JO2OIPkU9Ic=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dPBvD6LxlwHjpg4HuLahikriqI8ADICTYPLLTPoQtRMqbgRz4uNV85BmygPCtO21dB eb18pGuiLYmVTJo13BsWIvcy6pC8k1K39iOlDrdHAfFjnMK25eDHxNFi1zPDEt/BjYAB vzVOybUCC03ZIO8KelJ+YesdosuCkIMbmbKFs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.60.193 with SMTP id u43mr6523472wec.103.1300825723623; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.89.205 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es> <4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com> <4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es> <4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com> <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es> <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com> <4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es> <4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:28:43 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes (was: FW: Agenda requests for Prague meeting)
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:27:14 -0000

Alex:

What is your point? You're not happy with the agenda? Please be specific.

--julien

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 22/03/2011 17:45, marcelo bagnulo braun a =E9crit :
>>
>> El 22/03/11 16:37, Alexandru Petrescu escribi=F3:
>>>
>>> Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a =E9crit :
>>>>
>>>> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being non
>>>> MIP related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP related to
>>>> just one single agenda item...
>>>
>>> You asked one, I told one.
>>>
>>> Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS is
>>> not a MIP6 Type Code, etc.)
>>>
>>
>> you mean the presentation of the draft entitled "Negotiation of
>> security protocol for Mobile IPv6 operation" which in its 7 pages
>> mentions the term Mobile IP over 24 times????, really?
>
> Yes, I meant so, and here is why.
>
> If I understand it correctly, HAC seems to be a new box with two
> distinctive parts: one running a non-Mobile IP protocol (TLS tunnelled
> Req/Resp, i.e. non Mobile IPv6) and another part which runs pure Mobile
> IPv6 (BU/BAck).
>
> Me too: my draft's MR has two distinctive parts: one running a
> non-Mobile IP protocol (ICMPv6 extensions for prefixes, i.e. non Mobile
> IPv6) and another part which runs pure Mobile IPv6 (BU/BAck with NEMOv6)
> ("MR" is all over the draft and its definition is that it runs Mobile
> IPv6 with NEMOv6.)
>
> (On another hand, e.g. draft-hampel-mext-ro-without-ha-00, another
> agenda item, seems indeed to be modifications to the Mobile IPv6
> protocol (new HoA Support Mobility Option in Mobility Header). =A0That
> seems more appropriate to the MEXT agenda if MEXT is defined as being
> Mobile IPv6-only work.)
>
> That is why I think some items seem little appropriate to the agenda.
>
> Or maybe MEXT is not only about modifications to Mobile IPv6 but it is
> also something else, at which point more agenda items should be accepted
> in all fairness.
>
>>>> great, it seems we are making good progress here.
>>>>
>>>> about the particular item you mention: i understand this is the
>>>> motivation for the dmm work and understanding the perceived
>>>> probelms is needed to figure out how we can use MIP to deal with
>>>> =A0the perceived problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, if people think this is out of scope for MEXT, i am fine
>>>> to discuss whether we should keep it in the agenda or not
>>>
>>> I think it is worth discussing how much relationship do the
>>> current agenda items have to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, and whether
>>> that relationship is as much as other agenda requests.
>>
>> sure, that is what we are doing, but if your point is that
>> draft-patil-mext-sec-negotiate-00.txt is as closely related to the
>> MIPv6 protocol as IRON, then i am not sure we may be able to find a
>> common ground for understanding each other....
>
> I am trying to understand this.
>
> I look at ironmike (IRON and MOBIKE) and it reads like using IKE for
> supporting mobile nodes changing their addresses. =A0I think it could be
> used together with Mobile IPv6: use MOBIKE mobility when in an IRON
> domain or otherwise use Mobile IPv6 when handing over to the
> non-IRON parts of Internet.
>
> (I read "IRON tradespace" as I read "SDO")
>
> I may not understand ironmike correctly, I just suppose.
>
> IMHO.
>
> Alex
> [*] draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01
>>
>> Regards, marcelo
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El 22/03/11 15:35, Alexandru Petrescu escribi=F3:
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a =E9crit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT about
>>>>>> the Mobile IP protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 6th.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribi=F3:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marcelo, Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining Fred's
>>>>>>> request of agenda item.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current agenda
>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely related
>>>>>>> to the Mobile IPv6 protocol per se. Additionally, agenda's
>>>>>>> =A0DMM core item has a discussion which does not seem to
>>>>>>> converge on the use of Mobile IPv6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of
>>>>>>> MEXT doing _only_ Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer, as I
>>>>>>> see it today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt is
>>>>>>> related to IKE which is related to Mobile IPv6 security.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly. I
>>>>>>> am saying this because...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do
>>>>>>> (RA-based routing) for mobility, i.e. boxes which may run
>>>>>>> Mobile IPv6 but need something else than Mobile IPv6 Type
>>>>>>> Codes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda planning,
>>>>>>> thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a =E9crit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Fred,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is
>>>>>>>> limited to the the Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we
>>>>>>>> decline your request.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribi=F3:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new approach
>>>>>>>>> to mobility management known as IRON:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been
>>>>>>>>> published as an experimental RFC of the IRTF Routing
>>>>>>>>> Research Group:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are
>>>>>>>>> documented in the following active Internet drafts:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to present
>>>>>>>>> =A0the approach. Please let me know if that works for
>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>>>>>>>>> mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org]
>>>>>>>>>> =A0On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun Sent: Wednesday,
>>>>>>>>>> =A0March 09, 2011 8:32 AM To: mext Subject: [MEXT]
>>>>>>>>>> Agenda requests for Prague meeting
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting to
>>>>>>>>>> the chairs. please note that we are meeting on
>>>>>>>>>> friday.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>>>> =A0list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>

From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 13:50:09 2011
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC2A28C169 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.113
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11n9OtBHLX8Y for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C93728C0D7 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C531D9401F3; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:51:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D890BD4.8060502@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:51:32 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>	<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>	<4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>	<4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com>	<4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com>	<4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com> <AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110322-0, 22/03/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:50:09 -0000

Le 22/03/2011 21:28, Julien Laganier a écrit :
> Alex:
>
> What is your point? You're not happy with the agenda? Please be
> specific.

Because I earlier requested in private to Chairs a 5min slot in the
agenda and I did not receive reply, neither + nor -.

I guess(?) the reason of no reply may be similar to what was replied
publicly to Fred's request, hence my dissertation.  I may be wrong though.

Now publicly I would like to request a 5min slot to present advancement
of draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt
which presents three new scenarios applicable to Vehicular
communications which use RA-based routing on Mobile Routers which may be
HA-less when no HA available, and run unmodified Mobile IPv6 when HA
available.

Alex

>
> --julien
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Le 22/03/2011 17:45, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>
>>> El 22/03/11 16:37, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>>>
>>>> Le 22/03/2011 15:52, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> so, you ave downgraded you statement of several itemS being
>>>>> non MIP related and all the DMM discussion being non MIP
>>>>> related to just one single agenda item...
>>>>
>>>> You asked one, I told one.
>>>>
>>>> Another is the 3rd item (HAC is not a Mobile IPv6 entity, TLS
>>>> is not a MIP6 Type Code, etc.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> you mean the presentation of the draft entitled "Negotiation of
>>> security protocol for Mobile IPv6 operation" which in its 7
>>> pages mentions the term Mobile IP over 24 times????, really?
>>
>> Yes, I meant so, and here is why.
>>
>> If I understand it correctly, HAC seems to be a new box with two
>> distinctive parts: one running a non-Mobile IP protocol (TLS
>> tunnelled Req/Resp, i.e. non Mobile IPv6) and another part which
>> runs pure Mobile IPv6 (BU/BAck).
>>
>> Me too: my draft's MR has two distinctive parts: one running a
>> non-Mobile IP protocol (ICMPv6 extensions for prefixes, i.e. non
>> Mobile IPv6) and another part which runs pure Mobile IPv6 (BU/BAck
>>  with NEMOv6) ("MR" is all over the draft and its definition is
>> that it runs Mobile IPv6 with NEMOv6.)
>>
>> (On another hand, e.g. draft-hampel-mext-ro-without-ha-00, another
>> agenda item, seems indeed to be modifications to the Mobile IPv6
>> protocol (new HoA Support Mobility Option in Mobility Header).
>> That seems more appropriate to the MEXT agenda if MEXT is defined
>> as being Mobile IPv6-only work.)
>>
>> That is why I think some items seem little appropriate to the
>> agenda.
>>
>> Or maybe MEXT is not only about modifications to Mobile IPv6 but it
>> is also something else, at which point more agenda items should be
>> accepted in all fairness.
>>
>>>>> great, it seems we are making good progress here.
>>>>>
>>>>> about the particular item you mention: i understand this is
>>>>> the motivation for the dmm work and understanding the
>>>>> perceived probelms is needed to figure out how we can use MIP
>>>>> to deal with the perceived problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if people think this is out of scope for MEXT, i am
>>>>>  fine to discuss whether we should keep it in the agenda or
>>>>> not
>>>>
>>>> I think it is worth discussing how much relationship do the
>>>> current agenda items have to the Mobile IPv6 protocol, and
>>>> whether that relationship is as much as other agenda requests.
>>>
>>> sure, that is what we are doing, but if your point is that
>>> draft-patil-mext-sec-negotiate-00.txt is as closely related to
>>> the MIPv6 protocol as IRON, then i am not sure we may be able to
>>>  find a common ground for understanding each other....
>>
>> I am trying to understand this.
>>
>> I look at ironmike (IRON and MOBIKE) and it reads like using IKE
>> for supporting mobile nodes changing their addresses.  I think it
>> could be used together with Mobile IPv6: use MOBIKE mobility when
>> in an IRON domain or otherwise use Mobile IPv6 when handing over to
>> the non-IRON parts of Internet.
>>
>> (I read "IRON tradespace" as I read "SDO")
>>
>> I may not understand ironmike correctly, I just suppose.
>>
>> IMHO.
>>
>> Alex [*] draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01
>>>
>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> El 22/03/11 15:35, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 22/03/2011 15:06, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please point exactly what item in the agenda is NOT
>>>>>>> about the Mobile IP protocol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 6th.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> El 20/03/11 15:13, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marcelo, Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have a doubt about the reasoning behind declining
>>>>>>>> Fred's request of agenda item.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The current agenda
>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/mext.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> contains items IMHO only remotely or very vaguely
>>>>>>>> related to the Mobile IPv6 protocol per se.
>>>>>>>> Additionally, agenda's DMM core item has a discussion
>>>>>>>> which does not seem to converge on the use of Mobile
>>>>>>>> IPv6.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In this sense, I am not sure the typical statements of
>>>>>>>> MEXT doing _only_ Mobile IPv6 stuff holds any longer,
>>>>>>>> as I see it today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fred's "IRON and MOBIKE" draft-templin-ironmike-00.txt
>>>>>>>>  is related to IKE which is related to Mobile IPv6
>>>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not trying to advertise Fred's draft particularly.
>>>>>>>> I am saying this because...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have the same agenda problem with similar work I do
>>>>>>>> (RA-based routing) for mobility, i.e. boxes which may
>>>>>>>> run Mobile IPv6 but need something else than Mobile
>>>>>>>> IPv6 Type Codes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is my doubt about MEXT activity and agenda
>>>>>>>> planning, thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le 14/03/2011 19:56, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Fred,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is outside the scope of the MEXT wg, which is
>>>>>>>>> limited to the the Mobile IPv6 protocol. Hence, we
>>>>>>>>> decline your request.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> El 14/03/11 18:57, Templin, Fred L escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marcelo (and Julien),
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In January, I posted several messages on a new
>>>>>>>>>> approach to mobility management known as IRON:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04529.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04535.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04543.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04546.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The base IRON architecture document has now been
>>>>>>>>>> published as an experimental RFC of the IRTF
>>>>>>>>>> Routing Research Group:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6179.txt
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and the mechanisms and operational practices are
>>>>>>>>>> documented in the following active Internet
>>>>>>>>>> drafts:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
>>>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironmike-00
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-pm-00
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to get a 20min MEXT slot at IETF80 to
>>>>>>>>>> present the approach. Please let me know if that
>>>>>>>>>> works for you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>>>>>>>>>> mext-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>>>>> marcelo bagnulo braun Sent: Wednesday, March 09,
>>>>>>>>>>>  2011 8:32 AM To: mext Subject: [MEXT] Agenda
>>>>>>>>>>> requests for Prague meeting
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please send slot requests for the prague meeting
>>>>>>>>>>>  to the chairs. please note that we are meeting
>>>>>>>>>>> on friday.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT
>>>>>> mailing list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing
>>> list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>


From julien.ietf@gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 15:25:24 2011
Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F3B3A6808 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.303
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.303 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.296,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t-OuDZO8BjqL for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1773A6803 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so7453527fxm.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/eT8/Xx3bInOtJUA9p4kBd0Bev5L1uvyzcBm0cYzDxY=; b=wvUI/UskpWRNvrJxPXGX6Nx0x02fVTF8ESq6utI8KTGGKM/MQBEBkwr82f9U3M2Zlf g2yeXvwEK1tYdVW7jMSv6GGsH0Nu36SyX1nxLkvL5T+UVUy8Gnv+olt6q83RvV+gsMLr FR5ltf+wm1/xFbBxFSP/9O8M144ZKkfsBADEQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=eAUxCjwgVtKSaTJM5B0Zklp7AKesy0dBgdt+trNU0Axk6vept2zY6x3psxo01/I1kg KTguXNXzEH1+Z/59dObKf0QOrawH4tJlvUDVQ7wCbgJiSM9hWmW6l+OtjNoJJZB383Rs GCijqKtLwfbGUkowv2m/M71ijRepwzpExRLC8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.59.146 with SMTP id l18mr5485710fah.58.1300832815987; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.78.135 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4D890BD4.8060502@gmail.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es> <4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com> <4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es> <4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com> <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es> <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com> <4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es> <4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com> <AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com> <4D890BD4.8060502@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:26:55 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim_wYf+=OsgzOTpm5wWz+sPi564Tpph0HpY57XW@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:25:24 -0000

Alex:

Let me get this straight:

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 22/03/2011 21:28, Julien Laganier a =E9crit :
>>
>> Alex:
>>
>> What is your point? You're not happy with the agenda? Please be
>> specific.
>
> Because I earlier requested in private to Chairs a 5min slot in the
> agenda and I did not receive reply, neither + nor -.
>
> I guess(?) the reason of no reply may be similar to what was replied
> publicly to Fred's request, hence my dissertation. =A0I may be wrong thou=
gh.
>
> Now publicly I would like to request a 5min slot to present advancement
> of draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt
> which presents three new scenarios applicable to Vehicular
> communications which use RA-based routing on Mobile Routers which may be
> HA-less when no HA available, and run unmodified Mobile IPv6 when HA
> available.

Couple of points:

1. Your draft also doesn't correspond to any of this WG's deliverable.

2. If I am not mistaken you were already given a chance to present
this draft in a MEXT session, at which point nobody in the WG
expressed interest in it.

3. I also have double-checked my mailbox and I do not see any private
request to the chairs for a five minute slot to present this draft.
The only related thing I can see is a message _to the list_ announcing
a new version of your draft which isn't replying to Marcelo's call for
slot request. In this message you wrote "if deemed necessary, I would
be happy to present during a 5minute slot at the MEXT WG meeting in
Prague." Since nobody replied to you, I am assuming that nobody on
this list deemed necessary that you present again this draft in
Prague.

As a result, I am denying your request for a slot.

--julien

From alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com  Tue Mar 22 16:35:56 2011
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47ADF3A6840 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.127
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T8-H1ChmH3p4 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38DA728C16C for <mext@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.239.213.32]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993E994012C; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:37:21 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4D8932AF.4090007@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:37:19 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; fr; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>	<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>	<4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>	<4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com>	<4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com>	<4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com>	<AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com>	<4D890BD4.8060502@gmail.com> <AANLkTim_wYf+=OsgzOTpm5wWz+sPi564Tpph0HpY57XW@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim_wYf+=OsgzOTpm5wWz+sPi564Tpph0HpY57XW@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 110322-1, 22/03/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:35:56 -0000

Julien, sorry, I seemingly made a confusion with another private request.

Le 22/03/2011 23:26, Julien Laganier a écrit :
> Alex:
>
> Let me get this straight:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Le 22/03/2011 21:28, Julien Laganier a écrit :
>>>
>>> Alex:
>>>
>>> What is your point? You're not happy with the agenda? Please be
>>> specific.
>>
>> Because I earlier requested in private to Chairs a 5min slot in the
>> agenda and I did not receive reply, neither + nor -.
>>
>> I guess(?) the reason of no reply may be similar to what was
>> replied publicly to Fred's request, hence my dissertation.  I may
>> be wrong though.
>>
>> Now publicly I would like to request a 5min slot to present
>> advancement of draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt
>> which presents three new scenarios applicable to Vehicular
>> communications which use RA-based routing on Mobile Routers which
>> may be HA-less when no HA available, and run unmodified Mobile
>> IPv6 when HA available.
>
> Couple of points:
>
> 1. Your draft also doesn't correspond to any of this WG's
> deliverable.

Yes, I agree.

> 2. If I am not mistaken you were already given a chance to present
> this draft in a MEXT session, at which point nobody in the WG
> expressed interest in it.

YEs to the first part - I was given a chance to present in Maastricht.

For the second part: yes there were no comments during my Maastricht
presentation.

However, subsequent discussion on the mailing list seemed to request
from me (among other points) contribution of more industrial needs of
this kind of thing.  I consider this point addressed with the new more
commercial 3 scenarios as well as expanded authorship resulted from
analysis with a commercially-oriented partner - described in 01.

Other points which seemed to be requested on the mailing list about this
draft (e.g. other interest from parties from vehicular SDOs) have not
yet materialized.

Another point which I remember to have been raised is eventual starting
of new work like BoF.  Now, as in August 2010, I can only say it is too
early, I hope not forever too early, but just too earlyerish.

> 3. I also have double-checked my mailbox and I do not see any private
> request to the chairs for a five minute slot to present this draft.

Right, I just checked too and nothing.  I think I was wrong to say so
about that private request.  I took it for another request for another
WG then, sorry for the confusion, blame on my part.

> The only related thing I can see is a message _to the list_
> announcing a new version of your draft which isn't replying to
> Marcelo's call for slot request.

Yes, I did send an announcement on the mail list about the draft.

> In this message you wrote "if deemed necessary, I would be happy to
> present during a 5minute slot at the MEXT WG meeting in Prague."
> Since nobody replied to you, I am assuming that nobody on this list
> deemed necessary that you present again this draft in Prague.

Ah right, that must be it.

> As a result, I am denying your request for a slot.

Note taken.

Alex

>
> --julien
>


From thierry.ernst@inria.fr  Wed Mar 23 03:52:04 2011
Return-Path: <thierry.ernst@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDFC3A67FD for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bm5Bc0IRrlKt for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804743A6800 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,230,1299452400"; d="scan'208";a="103327482"
Received: from roc091r.vpn.inria.fr ([128.93.183.91]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 23 Mar 2011 11:53:34 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim_wYf+=OsgzOTpm5wWz+sPi564Tpph0HpY57XW@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:05:40 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7758DEF9-FD80-428B-95F1-782C9EB9373D@inria.fr>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es> <4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com> <4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es> <4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com> <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es> <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com> <4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es> <4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com> <AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com> <4D890BD4.8060502@gmail.com> <AANLkTim_wYf+=OsgzOTpm5wWz+sPi564Tpph0HpY57XW@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:52:05 -0000

Juiien,=20

Please read below.=20

Le 22 mars 2011 =E0 23:26, Julien Laganier a =E9crit :

>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> What is your point? You're not happy with the agenda? Please be
>>> specific.
>>=20
>> Because I earlier requested in private to Chairs a 5min slot in the
>> agenda and I did not receive reply, neither + nor -.
>>=20
>> I guess(?) the reason of no reply may be similar to what was replied
>> publicly to Fred's request, hence my dissertation.  I may be wrong =
though.
>>=20
>> Now publicly I would like to request a 5min slot to present =
advancement
>> of draft-petrescu-autoconf-ra-based-routing-01.txt
>> which presents three new scenarios applicable to Vehicular
>> communications which use RA-based routing on Mobile Routers which may =
be
>> HA-less when no HA available, and run unmodified Mobile IPv6 when HA
>> available.
>=20
> Couple of points:
>=20
> 2. If I am not mistaken you were already given a chance to present
> this draft in a MEXT session, at which point nobody in the WG
> expressed interest in it.

This is not what I would called a fair statement. There are people on =
this list that DO have interest in this work - including me -, though I =
agree it might not be the priority of the WG (which is quite different =
from what you wrote - please be careful with such a statement - of =
course I'm sure you didn't really mean it).

Thierry.


From pars.mutaf@gmail.com  Wed Mar 23 03:53:35 2011
Return-Path: <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CE33A6800; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZO1fJtPMEjep; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAE83A6801; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so6764269qwg.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=0JdEikf2Ayh93Om4n9xd0xObb+kB+IwVxP3Owr6+1S0=; b=aD+jpX6XMyTW3YAL9nXYKtYK+yLnpZv7KGgZgtphfxvwQW1Vdsv42b704LsGPgqaj1 J+Zq1nXhjgfyvUxzCvUIOyXXDImb7NOUgTdpMC2dyraqaWBFefBc7dsPbvdxf6t0+93o Z0kveKmpSDip2sEYBuLWi817VzT6zLWYFrFSg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=uB+P0+GoFTgql5dBkj8tRxNlOWoIbPpJxtNEnneBZqGQ/FTELq60rDQrRu1/O9QCeP QPqQ5YpJJlrost21Ywi70QMTuwIbkIXr3/1xBWaZoVkgidkLWuFcHT9qVQ5QUgXRIYk3 aFUbCrtQlYYhITjEv7XYXI1/GavxD8AEBgnzM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.137.32 with SMTP id u32mr5870822qat.322.1300877707181; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.67.13 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 03:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:55:07 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimDb5TH+yYPbLqhaO2iOiwu-R4VPsaJop8wz72_@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, mext@ietf.org, humanresolvers@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151748db04a200b5049f2431e7
Subject: [MEXT] Invitation to humanresolvers ML (was: Re: Energy consumption attacks)
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:53:35 -0000

--00151748db04a200b5049f2431e7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Julien, all,

We have a mailing list (humanresolvers) that was initially created to work
on the
higher level spam attacks on low-end mobile IP devices that consume host
resources
e.g. energy, CPU and memory, and annoy the user. We can expand the problem
scope
to primarily work on the IP-layer energy consuming Denial-of-Service (DoS)
attacks that
consist of sending large number of IP spoofing malicious packets to a victim
without
opening valid sessions (see description below). New attacks may also be
discovered.

The mailing list address is as follows:

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/humanresolvers

Problem statement:
==============

Battery powered mobile IP hosts will probably be victim of new
Denial-of-Service (DoS)
attacks that consume limited host resources e.g. energy, CPU and memory. An
attacker
can remotely consume victim mobile hosts' battery by continuously sending
them bogus
session initiating packets e.g. SIP INTIVE or TCP SYN. A simple defense e.g.
attempting
to drop malicious packets would result in mobile host unreachability, since
the victim
cannot possibly differentiate between legitimate and malicious session
initiating packets
purportedly coming from random IP addresses.

When under attack, a victim will consume energy for:

- Receiving the messages (continuously waking up from sleep mode)
- Processing them and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)
- Sending replies (L2 ACKs and upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)

Serious design efforts are being made in MAC layer access technologies to
enable energy
conserving sleep mode. The attack would not only foil these efforts, but
also consume energy
by "forcing" the victim to send replies to frequent malicious packets
purportedly coming from
random IP addresses. For example, simple experiments show that the battery
of a mobile
phone with 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in ~3 hours (full battery,
1350 mAh).
The attack may shut down the victim device more quickly if its battery level
is low. Attacks
on phones using an outdoor technology would result in faster energy
consumption due to the
longer distances to the base station.

At a higher level, attackers can also organize spamming attacks that consume
victims'
resources and annoy the users by sending spam.

I would like to invite interested folks to subscribe to discuss these
problems.

Regards,

Pars


On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello Pars,
>
> I can agree that the topic can be of interest to the MIPv6 community
> and thus it would be appropriate to post on the list a pointer to a
> place where the topic is being discussed. However since the attacks
> are generic and not specific to the MIPv6 protocol suite, I believe
> discussions on the topic itself are out-of-scope for this mailing
> list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --julien
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Julien,
> >
> > MIPv6 is mostly about battery powered mobile hosts, so I think this topic
> > should be of interest to Mobile IPv6 community. Secondly, when you think
> > about solutions, you may realize that it is an IP layer problem. Any
> upper
> > layer host identifier (FQDN or SIP URI etc) would be resolved to the
> "fixed"
> > home address of the mobile host and once the attacker has learned it, the
> > attack is possible. The attacker can remotely consume the victim's
> energy.
> > Application layer solutions like spam filtering would be useless because
> the
> > attacker is simply sending bogus packets, not even opening sessions.
> >
> > In fact, we may expand the problem space since there may be other
> problems
> > due to having a fixed MIPv6 home address. But I think the remote energy
> > consumption attack is the most serious one. Serious design efforts are
> being
> > made at MAC layer to enable energy conserving sleep mode. The attack
> would
> > not only foil these efforts, but also consume energy by "forcing" the
> victim
> > to reply to frequent malicious packets purportedly coming from random IP
> > addresses.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pars
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Pars -
> >>
> >> How is this attack related to MIPv6?
> >>
> >> --julien
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on battery
> >> > powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6
> community.
> >> >
> >> > The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. SIP
> INVITE
> >> > or
> >> > TCP SYN to a victim's home address.
> >> >
> >> > For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone
> with
> >> > 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery).
> >> > Attacks on
> >> > phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy
> >> > consumption
> >> > because of the longer distance to the base station.
> >> >
> >> > The victim becomes unusable.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Pars
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > MEXT mailing list
> >> > MEXT@ietf.org
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>

--00151748db04a200b5049f2431e7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Julien, all, <br><br>We have a mailing list (humanresolvers) that was in=
itially created to work on the <br>higher level spam attacks on low-end mob=
ile IP devices that consume host resources <br>e.g. energy, CPU and memory,=
 and annoy the user. We can expand the problem scope <br>
to primarily work on the IP-layer energy consuming Denial-of-Service (DoS) =
attacks that <br>consist of sending large number of IP spoofing malicious p=
ackets to a victim without <br>opening valid sessions (see description belo=
w). New attacks may also be discovered. <br>

<br>The mailing list address is as follows:<br><br><a href=3D"https://www.i=
etf.org/mailman/listinfo/humanresolvers" target=3D"_blank">https://www.ietf=
.org/mailman/listinfo/humanresolvers</a><br><br>Problem statement:<br>=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
Battery powered mobile IP hosts will probably be victim of new Denial-of-Se=
rvice (DoS)<br>attacks that consume limited host resources e.g. energy, CPU=
 and memory. An attacker <br>can remotely consume victim mobile hosts&#39; =
battery by continuously sending them bogus <br>

session initiating packets e.g. SIP INTIVE or TCP SYN. A simple defense e.g=
. attempting <br>to drop malicious packets would result in mobile host unre=
achability, since the victim <br>cannot possibly differentiate between legi=
timate and malicious session initiating packets<br>
purportedly coming from random IP addresses.<br>
<br>When under attack, a victim will consume energy for:<br><br>- Receiving=
 the messages (continuously waking up from sleep mode)<br>- Processing them=
 and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)<br>- Sending replies (L2 ACKs and =
upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)<br>

<br>Serious design efforts are being made in MAC layer access technologies =
to enable energy=20
<br>conserving sleep mode. The attack would not only foil these efforts, bu=
t
 also consume energy <br>by &quot;forcing&quot; the victim to send replies =
to frequent=20
malicious packets purportedly coming from <br>random IP addresses. For exam=
ple, simple experiments show that the battery of a mobile <br>phone with 80=
2.11 access can be remotely=20
consumed in ~3 hours (full battery, 1350 mAh). <br>The attack may shut down=
 the victim device more quickly if its battery level is low. Attacks <br>on=
 phones using an outdoor=20
technology would result in faster energy consumption due to the <br>longer
 distances to the base station. <br><br>At a higher level, attackers can al=
so organize spamming attacks that consume victims&#39; <br>resources and an=
noy the users by sending spam.<br><br>I would like to invite interested fol=
ks to subscribe to discuss these problems.<br>
<br>Regards, <br><br>Pars<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>On Tue, Mar=
 22, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Julien Laganier <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:julien.ietf@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">julien.ietf@gmail.com</a>&gt;</=
span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Hello Pars,<br>
<br>
I can agree that the topic can be of interest to the MIPv6 community<br>
and thus it would be appropriate to post on the list a pointer to a<br>
place where the topic is being discussed. However since the attacks<br>
are generic and not specific to the MIPv6 protocol suite, I believe<br>
discussions on the topic itself are out-of-scope for this mailing<br>
list.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--julien<br>
</font><div><div></div><div><br>
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Pars Mutaf &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pars.muta=
f@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; Hi Julien,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; MIPv6 is mostly about battery powered mobile hosts, so I think this to=
pic<br>
&gt; should be of interest to Mobile IPv6 community. Secondly, when you thi=
nk<br>
&gt; about solutions, you may realize that it is an IP layer problem. Any u=
pper<br>
&gt; layer host identifier (FQDN or SIP URI etc) would be resolved to the &=
quot;fixed&quot;<br>
&gt; home address of the mobile host and once the attacker has learned it, =
the<br>
&gt; attack is possible. The attacker can remotely consume the victim&#39;s=
 energy.<br>
&gt; Application layer solutions like spam filtering would be useless becau=
se the<br>
&gt; attacker is simply sending bogus packets, not even opening sessions.<b=
r>
&gt;<br>
&gt; In fact, we may expand the problem space since there may be other prob=
lems<br>
&gt; due to having a fixed MIPv6 home address. But I think the remote energ=
y<br>
&gt; consumption attack is the most serious one. Serious design efforts are=
 being<br>
&gt; made at MAC layer to enable energy conserving sleep mode. The attack w=
ould<br>
&gt; not only foil these efforts, but also consume energy by &quot;forcing&=
quot; the victim<br>
&gt; to reply to frequent malicious packets purportedly coming from random =
IP<br>
&gt; addresses.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Thanks,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Pars<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Julien Laganier &lt;<a href=3D"mailto=
:julien.ietf@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">julien.ietf@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Pars -<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; How is this attack related to MIPv6?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; --julien<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Pars Mutaf &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
pars.mutaf@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:=
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Hello,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on=
 battery<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6=
 community.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. =
SIP INVITE<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; or<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; TCP SYN to a victim&#39;s home address.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile =
phone with<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full batte=
ry).<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Attacks on<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energ=
y<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; consumption<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; because of the longer distance to the base station.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; The victim becomes unusable.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Regards,<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Pars<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; MEXT mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"mailto:MEXT@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">MEXT@ietf.=
org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; <a href=3D"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext" target=
=3D"_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext</a><br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--00151748db04a200b5049f2431e7--

From julien.ietf@gmail.com  Wed Mar 23 08:03:44 2011
Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AF3A3A691E for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.305
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.305 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.294,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iR2WLtS2qmxO for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361B43A691D for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so8079305fxm.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=h3oFhctOX7pvvod+sS+BWvhE+xS2cSVY79rrFOXoXVE=; b=sy7fC1auzmZC7+T+1Lz730bXfa+eGl2+LyZG5zy9lzHFtPuNpNgSXwDe774tOyfEHW mvLOj49/EI2xZBfA+tTqPWfrD6PPZVh+yh+O29ydoS9t8ha+yL0hj6iUg8w+byuaNaHC 6aeycp7Z5o5XMzAtp9EREg9BtdyCUgSyd9LPo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kYqhhkob9Xe0PifszTE6oHGM6y0uGN+OtDO2RvRYIHDBW9RsmTFq9uZU6/+gv5HHtw /xFS5lvuN71M0iO12JDVpbIBHSMU2jyGSqiw1Ap9ApgRntbce4bhh7ExgAd0cLU6t3bV Jz2gXqnLlNTi8b8jV2TfEv7SmPQIXnF1FVjYE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.59.146 with SMTP id l18mr6445898fah.58.1300892123418; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.78.135 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7758DEF9-FD80-428B-95F1-782C9EB9373D@inria.fr>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es> <4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com> <4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es> <4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com> <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es> <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com> <4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es> <4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com> <AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com> <4D890BD4.8060502@gmail.com> <AANLkTim_wYf+=OsgzOTpm5wWz+sPi564Tpph0HpY57XW@mail.gmail.com> <7758DEF9-FD80-428B-95F1-782C9EB9373D@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:55:23 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimuMPUaHSiFvxv9GBR_H8UxTet7R7wiRf+f4CPP@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:03:44 -0000

Thierry,

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@inria.fr> wro=
te:
>
> Juiien,
>
> Please read below.
>
> Le 22 mars 2011 =E0 23:26, Julien Laganier a =E9crit :
>
>>
>> 2. If I am not mistaken you were already given a chance to present
>> this draft in a MEXT session, at which point nobody in the WG
>> expressed interest in it.
>
> This is not what I would called a fair statement. There are people on thi=
s list that DO have interest in this work - including me -, though I agree =
it might not be the priority of the WG (which is quite different from what =
you wrote - please be careful with such a statement - of course I'm sure yo=
u didn't really mean it).

Please read my statements carefully before calling on their fairness.
I did not write nobody in the WG was interested, I wrote that nobody
in the WG expressed interest. Did you expressed interest in this
specific draft when it was announced to the mailing list? If so, it
would seem I have missed your message and I would apologize...

--julien

From KSha@okcu.edu  Wed Mar 23 10:20:10 2011
Return-Path: <KSha@okcu.edu>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAC93A6939 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:20:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.297
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.302,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xT3QWdHn-Wt1 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SpamServer.okcu.edu (mail.okcu.edu [66.210.199.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DEB43A6930 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from email.okcu.edu (n5aa24.okcu.edu [192.168.10.98]) by SpamServer.okcu.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id p2NHDEWE027890; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:13:14 -0500
Received: from n5aa20.okcu.edu ([::1]) by N5AA24.okcu.edu ([fe80::25e7:559:71a8:99e%11]) with mapi; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:22:21 -0500
From: "Sha, Kewei" <KSha@okcu.edu>
To: "sigmm@pi4.informatik.uni-mannheim.de" <sigmm@pi4.informatik.uni-mannheim.de>, "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:20:45 -0500
Thread-Topic: [MobiPST 2011] Deadline Extended (Mar 25 2011) SCI Journal
Thread-Index: AQHL5rxXtqnam+gMA0K4VkmgFweJqpQ1rHNLgAARwz+AAAPh1oAAAY61gAAFpqOAAAF65oAEnGk8gAAE+TqAAACngIAAAcm6gAAB5BaAAABAEoAAvxbc
Message-ID: <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3C7@N5AA20.okcu.edu>
References: <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3AF@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3B0@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3B6@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3B7@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3B8@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3BB@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3BC@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3BD@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3BE@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3C0@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3C1@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3C2@N5AA20.okcu.edu>, <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3C3@N5AA20.okcu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <62CF6C9F10C1D44DA44CCC3EE395B53F01FB2ED3C3@N5AA20.okcu.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CanIt-Geo: No geolocation information available for 192.168.10.98
X-CanItPRO-Stream: Outgoing (inherits from default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 192.168.10.120
Subject: [MEXT] CFP: [MobiPST 2011] Deadline Extended (Mar 25 2011) SCI Journal
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:20:10 -0000

We apologize if you receive duplicated copies.

The First International Workshop on Privacy, Security and Trust in Mobile a=
nd Wireless Systems (MobiPST 2011) in conjunction with ICCCN 2011.

http://ocu-stars.okcu.edu/ksha/mobipst2011.html

Maui, Hawaii, July 31 or August 4 (TBD), 2011

The First International Workshop on Privacy, Security and Trust in Mobile a=
nd Wireless Systems (MobiPST 2011) will be held in conjunction with the 20t=
h International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN 2=
011), in Maui, Hawaii, USA. All papers presented in MobiPST 2011 will be pu=
blished in the workshop proceedings.

Outstanding papers will be invited to extend to full version for a prestigi=
ous journal (SCI(E)-indexed).

Recently, mobile wireless devices, such as wireless sensors, smart tags, sm=
art pads, tablets, PDAs and smart phones, have become pervasive and attract=
ed significant interest from academia, industry, and standard organizations=
. With the latest cloud computing technology, those mobile wireless devices=
 will play a more and more important role in computing and communication. W=
hen those devices become pervasive, security, privacy and trust become crit=
ical components for the acceptance of applications build based on those dev=
ices. Moreover, several favorable characteristics of mobile and wireless de=
vices, including portability, mobility, and sensitivity, further impose the=
 challenge of security and privacy in those systems. Despite recent advance=
s, many research issues still remain in the design of secure, privacy-prese=
rving, or trust architectures, protocols, algorithms, services, and applica=
tions on mobile and wireless systems. For example, when mobile devices have=
 more storage space, high bandwidth, and super sensing capability, more sen=
sitive information will be stored in those devices. On the other hand, oper=
ating systems running on those devices are not as powerful and reliable as =
those on traditional computers. Both OS layer and higher-level layer protoc=
ols are expected to enhance the security and preserve the privacy of those =
devices. With more mobile devices being used in social networks and traditi=
onal web-based systems, novel trust models are essential for new applicatio=
ns. New cryptographic algorithms, key distribution schemes and access contr=
ol policies are also encouraged by considering the special characteristics =
of mobile and wireless devices. Other issues such as malware, cyber threat,=
 intrusion detection, attack modeling, security analysis, identity manageme=
nt and anonymity techniques also need to be revisited in mobile and wireles=
s systems.

This workshop aims to bring together the technologists and researchers who =
share interest in the area of security, privacy and trust in mobile and wir=
eless systems, as well as explore new venues of collaboration. The main pur=
pose is to promote discussions of research and relevant activities in the m=
odels and designs of secure, privacy-preserving, or trust architectures, pr=
otocols, algorithms, services, and applications, as well as analysis on cyb=
er threat in mobile and wireless systems. It also aims at increasing the sy=
nergy between academic and industry professionals working in this area. We =
plan to seek papers that address theoretical, experimental research, and wo=
rk in-progress for security, privacy and trust related issues in the contex=
t of mobile and wireless systems that include, but are not limited to, the =
following

Wireless Local Area Networks
Wireless Sensor Networks
Wireless Mesh Networks
Wireless Ad-hoc Networks
Vehicular Networks
Body-area Networks
Cellular Networks
Home Networks
Social Networks
Smart Grid
RFID-based Systems
Mobile Cloud
Cyber-Physical Systems
Internet of Things
Location-based Service Systems

Authors are invited to submit manuscripts reporting original unpublished re=
search and recent developments in the topics related to the workshop. Submi=
ssions should include an abstract, the e-mail address of the corresponding =
author. The length of the papers should be limited to 6 pages in standard I=
EEE camera-ready format (double-column, 10-pt font). Submission via EDAS at=
 http://edas.info//N10077. Submission of a paper should be regarded as an u=
ndertaking that, should the paper be accepted, at least one of the authors =
will register and attend the workshop to present the work.

All papers will be peer reviewed and the comments will be provided to the a=
uthors. All accepted papers will be published in workshop proceedings.
Outstanding papers will be invited to extend to full version for a prestigi=
ous journal (SCI(E)-indexed), which is targeting publication in early 2012.


Important Dates
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
March 25, 2011
Paper submission due

April 25, 2011
Acceptance Notification

May 13, 2011
Camera ready versions due


Organization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
Workshop Co-Chairs

Kewei Sha
   Oklahoma City University, USA

Zhengping Wu
   University of Bridgeport, USA

Technical Program Committee

       Liviu Iftode , Rutgers University, USA

       James Joshi , University of Pittsburgh, USA

       Johnson Thomas , Oklahoma State University, USA

         Keke Chen, Wright State University, USA

         Alfred Weaver, University of Virginia, USA

         Danfeng (Daphne) Yao, Virginia Tech, USA

         Sheikh Iqbal Ahamed, Marquette University, USA

         Huiqun Yu, East China University of Science and Technology, China

         William Claycomb, Sandia National Laboratories, USA

         Dongwan Shin, New Mexico Tech, USA

         Robert Greve, Oklahoma City University, USA

         Jaehong Park, University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

         Sherali Zeadally, University of the District of Columbia, USA

         Julia Deng, Intelligent Automation Inc., USA

         Safwan Al-Omari, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Jord=
an

         Songqing Chen, George Mason University, USA

         Gail-Joon Ahn, Arizona State University, USA

         Zhiwei Wang, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, C=
hina

         Loren Schwieber, Wayne State University, USA

         Yafei Yang, Qualcomm Inc., USA

         Rajiv Bagai, Wichita State University, USA

         Junzhao Du, Xidian University, China=

From h.anthony.chan@huawei.com  Wed Mar 23 15:18:41 2011
Return-Path: <h.anthony.chan@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C765F3A63EB; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X8exE8L4zlEl; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C393A63D2; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LIJ002VC7DQ2T@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:20:15 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.9.107]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug  8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LIJ005P97DQZT@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:20:14 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:20:12 -0700
Received: from C73782 (10.124.9.51) by DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:20:13 -0700
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:20:05 -0500
From: h chan <h.anthony.chan@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.124.9.51]
To: mext@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org
Message-id: <006801cbe9a8$7656d210$33097c0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thread-index: AQHL3aWHdcznOQCGykW+F1PZt+4kmpQ7gJgggAAURjA=
Subject: [MEXT] DMM problem statement
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:20:42 -0000

Please note that the problem statement had been revised in the 01 version:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-distributed-mobility-ps-01
Problem statement for distributed and dynamic mobility management

The changes in this version are in the attempts to spell out the problem
statement more clearly. If further clarifications are needed in the problem
statement, please let us know. 

H Anthony Chan


From pars.mutaf@gmail.com  Thu Mar 24 00:59:22 2011
Return-Path: <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43AB3A6813 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.798
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hmvf+AFz-l54 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364793A67E5 for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so7551365qwg.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cnCBTZNyPZSAPo+RVEO/rU1CtuDBRmCKfzxVQvgLM8U=; b=CqYxfUTh0fV1mQftMysH5199hS884G4o9dntDG7wSaxip4A9fI6JYQvufQBYv5adNl E4Ta/LY3HXJDbm/uGLX5SHXS5hZgxK1+HJy+xjH62bn892Pg4ooFBUKLroQPMSlWOzzt VD5F8b+usDN7Pe0Y5wtcQ1dCnpmcT0h9Z8WxE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=wOs65/N+czk2l8lHKAiMdQjy8njtZQASeWF9aWKmYzGaer8EOTn5x+J5HPyS4uwV1U JKu/JmLNpBSq9qVfpsoGfz9pCCmNd4JoyUq9zVueS064UzTNLkXO4/I+bFAROU9OerWm N+W+f12SM/YS8La0teSu9+9LBcgzThZZVQ/Hg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.40.208 with SMTP id l16mr6897794qae.72.1300953655373; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.67.13 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <008c01cbe83d$fb4763c0$f1d62b40$@a-star.edu.sg>
References: <AANLkTikW+MfR_R4A+g2+o=BZDnsAoOmfLHNgiOm4Z_-n@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikGc4JDgzBivYQNGfPTzf8r75L_od2etQMq3Rm5@mail.gmail.com> <008c01cbe83d$fb4763c0$f1d62b40$@a-star.edu.sg>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:00:55 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimKA5=EEXVq1gA_w8BPLRvZVdfGNv45E_gM8sn3@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: QIU Ying <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485eba59c7f6f25049f35e0bc
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:59:22 -0000

--001485eba59c7f6f25049f35e0bc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:05 AM, QIU Ying <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg> wrote:

> This topic is interesting.
>
>
>
> But I am afraid that there is an efficient way to prevent this kind of DOS
> attacks because the mobile node must wake up from sleep to receive and
> process these required messages before simply drop them.
>
>
>
> Could you please provide more details?
>
>
>


Hi Ying, all,

You can also find an example solution briefly described in the following
I-D:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mutaf-dhoa-00

But protocols are necessary for securely distributing disposable home
addresses to correspondent nodes.

For further discussion you may subscribe to humanresolvers.

Thanks,

Pars


> Regards
>
> Qiu Ying
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Pars Mutaf
> *Sent:* Monday, March 21, 2011 7:07 PM
> *To:* mext@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [MEXT] Energy consumption attacks
>
>
>
> Some details that may not be obvious:
>
> The victim consumes energy for:
>
> - Receiving the messages (continuously waking up from sleep mode)
> - Processing them and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)
> - Sending replies (L2 ACKs and upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)
>
> Sending replies especially consumes more energy. It was shown that in
> 802.11 sending 1 bit over the air consumes as much as executing 1,000 CPU
> instructions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pars
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks on battery
> powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 community.
>
> The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g. SIP INVITE or
> TCP SYN to a victim's home address.
>
> For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with
> 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks on
> phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumption
> because of the longer distance to the base station.
>
> The victim becomes unusable.
>
> Regards,
>
> Pars
>
>
>  Institute for Infocomm Research disclaimer: "This email is confidential
> and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete
> it and notify us immediately. Please do not copy or use it for any purpose,
> or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you."
>

--001485eba59c7f6f25049f35e0bc
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:05 AM, QIU Yin=
g <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg">qiuyin=
g@i2r.a-star.edu.sg</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204=
, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-AU"><div><p class=3D"MsoNorm=
al"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">This topic is=
 interesting. </span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 1=
1pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">=A0</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">But I am afraid that there is an efficient way to prevent this kind o=
f DOS attacks because the mobile node must wake up from sleep to receive an=
d process these required messages before simply drop them.</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);">=A0</span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; =
color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Could you please provide more details?</span></p>=
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">
<span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">=A0</span></p></d=
iv></div></blockquote><div><br><br>Hi Ying, all, <br><br>You can also find =
an example solution briefly described in the following I-D:<br><br><a href=
=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mutaf-dhoa-00">http://tools.ietf.org/h=
tml/draft-mutaf-dhoa-00</a><br>
<br>But protocols are necessary for securely distributing disposable home a=
ddresses to correspondent nodes.<br><br>For further discussion you may subs=
cribe to humanresolvers. <br><br>Thanks, <br><br>Pars<br>=A0</div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1=
px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-AU"><div><p class=3D"MsoNorm=
al"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Regards</span=
></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, =
73, 125);">Qiu Ying</span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 1=
25);"> =A0</span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size: 11pt;=
 color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">=A0</span></p><div style=3D"border-width: medium=
 medium medium 1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -mo=
z-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; padding: 0cm=
 0cm 0cm 4pt;">
<div><div style=3D"border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid non=
e none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-=
color; padding: 3pt 0cm 0cm;"><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font=
-size: 10pt;" lang=3D"EN-US">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-size: 10pt=
;" lang=3D"EN-US"> <a href=3D"mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">mext-bounces@ietf.org</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.or=
g" target=3D"_blank">mext-bounces@ietf.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Pars Mu=
taf<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 21, 2011 7:07 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto=
:mext@ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">mext@ietf.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: =
[MEXT] Energy consumption attacks</span></p></div></div><div><div></div><di=
v class=3D"h5">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0</p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom=
: 12pt;">Some details that may not be obvious: <br><br>The victim consumes =
energy for:<br><br>- Receiving the messages (continuously waking up from sl=
eep mode)<br>
- Processing them and preparing reply packets (L2 and L3)<br>- Sending repl=
ies (L2 ACKs and upper layer replies e.g. SIP or TCP replies)<br><br>Sendin=
g replies especially consumes more energy. It was shown that in 802.11 send=
ing 1 bit over the air consumes as much as executing 1,000 CPU instructions=
. <br>
<br>Regards, <br><br>Pars<br><br></p><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Mon, Ma=
r 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Pars Mutaf &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pars.mutaf@gmail.c=
om" target=3D"_blank">pars.mutaf@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</p><p class=3D"Ms=
oNormal">
Hello, <br><br>I was wondering if solutions to energy consumption attacks o=
n battery powered mobile hosts would be of interest to IETF Mobile IPv6 com=
munity. <br><br>The attack consists of sending frequent request packets e.g=
. SIP INVITE or TCP SYN to a victim&#39;s home address. <br>
<br>For example, experiments showed that the battery of a mobile phone with=
 802.11 access can be remotely consumed in 3 hours (full battery). Attacks =
on phones using an outdoor technology would result in more energy consumpti=
on because of the longer distance to the base station. <br>
<br>The victim becomes unusable.<br><br>Regards, <br><span style=3D"color: =
rgb(136, 136, 136);"><br>Pars</span></p></div><p class=3D"MsoNormal">=A0</p=
></div></div></div></div>
<div>
Institute for Infocomm Research disclaimer:  &quot;This email is confidenti=
al and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please del=
ete it and notify us immediately. Please do not copy or use it for any purp=
ose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you.&quot;<br>

</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>

--001485eba59c7f6f25049f35e0bc--

From thierry.ernst@inria.fr  Thu Mar 24 06:58:31 2011
Return-Path: <thierry.ernst@inria.fr>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E73E3A68C2 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.249
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cZ4wT1vKpwbB for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2998828C112 for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,237,1299452400";  d="vcf'?scan'208";a="103422367"
Received: from vir78-1-87-88-164-205.dsl.club-internet.fr (HELO [192.168.1.3]) ([87.88.164.205]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA; 24 Mar 2011 15:00:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4D8B4E62.50903@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:00:02 +0100
From: Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@inria.fr>
Organization: INRIA
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>	<4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es>	<4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com>	<4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com>	<4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com>	<4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es>	<4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com>	<AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com>	<4D890BD4.8060502@gmail.com>	<AANLkTim_wYf+=OsgzOTpm5wWz+sPi564Tpph0HpY57XW@mail.gmail.com>	<7758DEF9-FD80-428B-95F1-782C9EB9373D@inria.fr> <AANLkTimuMPUaHSiFvxv9GBR_H8UxTet7R7wiRf+f4CPP@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimuMPUaHSiFvxv9GBR_H8UxTet7R7wiRf+f4CPP@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------000909090401080406060709"
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:58:31 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000909090401080406060709
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Hi Julien,

What is the timestamp associated with your question regarding interest 
from WG members ? I did say I have interest in this, but this was a 
while ago (and it stills holds).

I'm not attending the IETF meeting this time but I would be happy to 
ear/read what are the conclusions of the MEXT WG regarding Alex's draft are.

Regards,
Thierry




On 23/03/11 15:55, Julien Laganier wrote:
> Thierry,
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Thierry Ernst<thierry.ernst@inria.fr>  wrote:
>> Juiien,
>>
>> Please read below.
>>
>> Le 22 mars 2011 à 23:26, Julien Laganier a écrit :
>>
>>> 2. If I am not mistaken you were already given a chance to present
>>> this draft in a MEXT session, at which point nobody in the WG
>>> expressed interest in it.
>> This is not what I would called a fair statement. There are people on this list that DO have interest in this work - including me -, though I agree it might not be the priority of the WG (which is quite different from what you wrote - please be careful with such a statement - of course I'm sure you didn't really mean it).
> Please read my statements carefully before calling on their fairness.
> I did not write nobody in the WG was interested, I wrote that nobody
> in the WG expressed interest. Did you expressed interest in this
> specific draft when it was announced to the mailing list? If so, it
> would seem I have missed your message and I would apologize...
>
> --julien


--------------000909090401080406060709
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
 name="thierry_ernst.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="thierry_ernst.vcf"

begin:vcard
fn:Thierry  Ernst
n:Ernst;Thierry 
org:INRIA - Project Team IMARA - LaRA JRU
tel;work:+33 1 3963 59 30
tel;fax:+33 1 39 63 54 91
tel;cell:+33 6 76 56 25 96
url:http://www.lara.prd.fr
version:2.1
end:vcard


--------------000909090401080406060709--

From julien.ietf@gmail.com  Thu Mar 24 10:13:32 2011
Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48FA28C13D for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.307
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.292,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TKdNNCKUU7fh for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D8628C13C for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eye13 with SMTP id 13so124625eye.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SDv6G/oNsE+wMmMdSdWe+fQVmfRy/gzPxWKyIeqVAug=; b=WCSv7AdVt/TLHtcczsl+QkvZyBibDhlr80jbwbJyYBAsDiO+NFvzxqJlVoFFU/KrJE Cz0r04HCXMslkrz6SxNEYfBB8H/TGct+BXOzPoCUZOjNyMuFKRHOnOPtYKWrX4T1RW2n cVV6EIyUf8CuuBwNWqxMGzBwo83Iq+2NfrBss=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=KTTRlkxDcMrIkV9qHvJPPboEsevTGurIEUUnGNZEkwX4e4i+205D5TgQxw9wRmbw1u Czm1bE48ts6i2DK7/gjBUsD+D/3UbTAZxyddUcaChXjGfc3oU60R1jdsM2LJiADx7QyS 2423pz9xz8f5307xsKHiYYHjGEL05l5AGjVAw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.160.129 with SMTP id u1mr911689wek.88.1300986905594; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.89.205 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4D8B4E62.50903@inria.fr>
References: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C69021B3A@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4D7E64EE.5030302@it.uc3m.es> <4D860B93.4030602@gmail.com> <4D88ACE6.6030207@it.uc3m.es> <4D88B3A5.7050302@gmail.com> <4D88B7B5.4020903@it.uc3m.es> <4D88C23B.4020709@gmail.com> <4D88D22D.300@it.uc3m.es> <4D88FC52.4090309@gmail.com> <AANLkTimP84zss62OuTddFGLgDd5GAw1M7ctZh+Nxbkmj@mail.gmail.com> <4D890BD4.8060502@gmail.com> <AANLkTim_wYf+=OsgzOTpm5wWz+sPi564Tpph0HpY57XW@mail.gmail.com> <7758DEF9-FD80-428B-95F1-782C9EB9373D@inria.fr> <AANLkTimuMPUaHSiFvxv9GBR_H8UxTet7R7wiRf+f4CPP@mail.gmail.com> <4D8B4E62.50903@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:15:05 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin7NqPA-v8PXo1vanuw2gr0a5pqZ_m1EpxkUKAD@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Mobile IPv6 label and Mobile IPv6 protocol changes
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:13:32 -0000

Thierry,

If any, it would be whenever after Alex presented his draft, as I
originally wrote. That is anyway beside the point. The point was, and
remains, that my recollection of how things went were there was no or
little interest expressed by the WG in Alex's draft, and it was also
commented by some that the issue described in Alex's draft isn't
specific to MEXT, NEMO or MIPv6 but a generic routing issue and thus
is out-of-scope for MEXT.

Thus unless the situation changes from what it's been earlier on, I do
not see a reason to allocate airtime to present the same draft again
in our face-to-face meeting.

--julien

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@inria.fr> wro=
te:
>
> Hi Julien,
>
> What is the timestamp associated with your question regarding interest fr=
om
> WG members ? I did say I have interest in this, but this was a while ago
> (and it stills holds).
>
> I'm not attending the IETF meeting this time but I would be happy to
> ear/read what are the conclusions of the MEXT WG regarding Alex's draft a=
re.
>
> Regards,
> Thierry
>
>
>
>
> On 23/03/11 15:55, Julien Laganier wrote:
>>
>> Thierry,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Thierry Ernst<thierry.ernst@inria.fr>
>> =A0wrote:
>>>
>>> Juiien,
>>>
>>> Please read below.
>>>
>>> Le 22 mars 2011 =E0 23:26, Julien Laganier a =E9crit :
>>>
>>>> 2. If I am not mistaken you were already given a chance to present
>>>> this draft in a MEXT session, at which point nobody in the WG
>>>> expressed interest in it.
>>>
>>> This is not what I would called a fair statement. There are people on
>>> this list that DO have interest in this work - including me -, though I
>>> agree it might not be the priority of the WG (which is quite different =
from
>>> what you wrote - please be careful with such a statement - of course I'=
m
>>> sure you didn't really mean it).
>>
>> Please read my statements carefully before calling on their fairness.
>> I did not write nobody in the WG was interested, I wrote that nobody
>> in the WG expressed interest. Did you expressed interest in this
>> specific draft when it was announced to the mailing list? If so, it
>> would seem I have missed your message and I would apologize...
>>
>> --julien
>
>

From iesg-secretary@ietf.org  Mon Mar 28 10:03:58 2011
Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B40528C0F6; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.541
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4rdzlPj3q15y; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1154D28C117; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.13
Message-ID: <20110328170357.8660.33557.idtracker@localhost>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:03:57 -0700
Cc: mext mailing list <mext@ietf.org>, mext chair <mext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [MEXT] Protocol Action: 'Mobility Support in IPv6' to Proposed Standard	(draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt)
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:03:58 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Mobility Support in IPv6'
  (draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-13.txt) as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Jari Arkko.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis/




Technical Summary

  This document specifies Mobile IPv6, a protocol which allows nodes to
  remain reachable while moving around in the IPv6 Internet.  Each
  mobile node is always identified by its home address, regardless of
  its current point of attachment to the Internet.  While situated away
  from its home, a mobile node is also associated with a care-of
  address, which provides information about the mobile node's current
  location.  IPv6 packets addressed to a mobile node's home address are
  transparently routed to its care-of address.  The protocol enables
  IPv6 nodes to cache the binding of a mobile node's home address with
  its care-of address, and to then send any packets destined for the
  mobile node directly to it at this care-of address.  To support this
  operation, Mobile IPv6 defines a new IPv6 protocol and a new
  destination option.  All IPv6 nodes, whether mobile or stationary,
  can communicate with mobile nodes.  This document addresses a number
  of issues in RFC 3775, which are listed in Appendix B, and obsoletes
  RFC 3775.

Working Group Summary

  The normal WG process was followed and the document revisions have been 
  discussed for over two years. The document as it is now, reflects WG
  consensus, with nothing special worth noting. 

Document Quality

  The document was given adequate reviews. The Document Shepherd has
  no concerns about the depth or breadth of these reviews.

Personnel

  Julien Laganier (julienl@qualcomm.com) is the document
  shepherd.  Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> is the
  responsible AD.



From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com  Wed Mar 30 01:58:28 2011
Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26BC3A6B35 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.068
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.531, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QsWVcz7fnWZp for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9323A6B34 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-da01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p2U8xPB8021074 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:00:04 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:59:31 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.58) by NOK-am1MHUB-02.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:59:30 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-023.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.94]) by 008-AM1MMR1-003.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.58]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.002; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:59:29 +0200
From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
To: <mext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DSMIP6 Flow mobility demo on March 31st
Thread-Index: AQHL7rjH9p4Dpkwrr0qHr9rKRRH39Q==
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:59:29 +0000
Message-ID: <C9B85B1F.1279F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115
x-originating-ip: [130.129.83.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <07299BA310E20841A72B0ED8330A8906@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2011 08:59:31.0284 (UTC) FILETIME=[C858B140:01CBEEB8]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: ext-bruno.faria@nokia.com
Subject: [MEXT] DSMIP6 Flow mobility demo on March 31st
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:58:28 -0000

Hello,

We will demonstrate an implementation of DSMIP6 flow mobility (RFC 6088/9)
on March 31st (Thursday) at 3.30 PM.
The duration of this demo will be about 30~45 mins.

The meeting room is TBD at the moment. I will send an update as soon as I
hear from the IETF admin.

-Raj/Bruno


From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com  Wed Mar 30 05:53:56 2011
Return-Path: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78173A6816 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.511
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_OTHER=0.135, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f0CayEx+ApIa for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-da02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.128.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9313A6A1C for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh104.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.30]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p2UCtTEB010351 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:55:34 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);  Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:55:33 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-001.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.56) by NOK-AM1MHUB-04.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:55:33 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-023.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.94]) by 008-AM1MMR1-001.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.56]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.002; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:55:32 +0200
From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
To: <mext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DSMIP6 Flow mobility demo on March 31st (Meeting room: Herocovka)
Thread-Index: AQHL7tnAl8LtzrK4VUyBPlt57zBVuw==
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:55:31 +0000
Message-ID: <C9B89190.1287C%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9B85B1F.1279F%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115
x-originating-ip: [130.129.83.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <317C60A58C80A144BD40C25735C7CE5F@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2011 12:55:33.0117 (UTC) FILETIME=[C174EAD0:01CBEED9]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: ext-bruno.faria@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [MEXT] DSMIP6 Flow mobility demo on March 31st (Meeting room: Herocovka)
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:53:56 -0000

Meeting room: Herocovka
Time: 3.30 PM on March 31st

-Raj

On 3/30/11 3:59 AM, "Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-MS/Dallas)"
<basavaraj.patil@nokia.com> wrote:

>
>Hello,
>
>We will demonstrate an implementation of DSMIP6 flow mobility (RFC 6088/9)
>on March 31st (Thursday) at 3.30 PM.
>The duration of this demo will be about 30~45 mins.
>
>The meeting room is TBD at the moment. I will send an update as soon as I
>hear from the IETF admin.
>
>-Raj/Bruno
>