From monami6-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 04 09:15:43 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H2TNU-0007hl-Bk; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:15:32 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H2TNS-0007hf-J1 for monami6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:15:30 -0500 Received: from mxs1.siemens.at ([194.138.12.131] helo=atvies1zqx.siemens.at) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H2TND-0003l2-PS for monami6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:15:30 -0500 Received: from vies1kbx.sie.siemens.at ([158.226.129.82]) by atvies1zqx.siemens.at with ESMTP id l04ECks8031055 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:12:46 +0100 Received: from nets138a.ww300.siemens.net ([158.226.129.98]) by vies1kbx.sie.siemens.at (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.1) with ESMTP id l04EFB7h027110 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:15:12 +0100 Received: from nets13ga.ww300.siemens.net ([158.226.250.76]) by nets138a.ww300.siemens.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:15:12 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:15:11 +0100 Message-ID: <5B32D34C21BAB14AAE47FF638BF82F0001B5B532@nets13ga.ww300.siemens.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Need I-D reviews Thread-Index: AccwCr6nwXwbxhb4SjWFt7g5v0zVZw== From: "Plasser, Erich" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2007 14:15:12.0066 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF4D2A20:01C7300A] X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Checked for Spam by eleven - eXpurgate www.eXpurgate.net X-purgate-ID: 149917::070104151246-55E2CBB0-6209FEF8/0-0/0-15 X-purgate-size: 10990/999999 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9cc83ac38bbbabacbf00f656311dd8d8 Subject: [Monami6] Need I-D reviews X-BeenThere: monami6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Monami6 WG List-Id: Monami6 WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1082036318==" Errors-To: monami6-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1082036318== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7300A.BEE1BE3A" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7300A.BEE1BE3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Nicolas, Thierry =20 I have reviewd and posted some comments to the draft "Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6"=20 =20 Page2 "It is not the intention of this document to imply that all issues must be solved in the short term." Comment: This sentence gives a weak impression for the whole draft. I propose to skip this sentence. =20 Page3 First sentences of Introduction: "The use of multiple addresses (allocated to either a single interface or multiple interfaces) is foreseen to provide ubiquitous, permanent and fault-tolerant access to the Internet, particularly on mobile nodes which are prone to failure or sudden lack of connectivity." Comment: Multiple addresses cannot guarantee permanent access, but higher probability for permanent access, it can provide for less error prone, etc. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Again I have reviewd and posted some comments to the draft "Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple Interfaces and Global Addresses" =20 Page6: "3.1. Need for Ubiquitous Access to the Internet" Comment: The title ubiquitous is misleading. Typically an ubiquitous access depends not only on the number of interfaces on the node but also on the reliability of the network. =20 Page 6: Comment: Issue 3.1 is also redirection of a flow as is issue 3.2 =20 =20 Page 10: 4.1 "Multiple interfaces bound to distinct technologies can be used to ensure a permanent connectivity is offered, anywhere, anytime, with anyone." Comment: Multiple addresses cannot guarantee permanent access, but higher probability for permanent access, it can provide for less error prone, etc. =20 =20 Page 10: 4. Goals and Benefits: =20 Comment: Extent further important scenarios followed by multihoming:=20 pre-authentication,=20 bicasting,=20 error correction, monitoring of the available interfaces which of them has the best quality, policy-based decision at which time interface should be changed. =20 =20 Comment: Insert the following aspect in page 17 6.7 Issues: =20 The listed issues are not complete. Monitoring of the available interfaces which of them has the best quality, policy-based decision at which time interface should be changed. =20 =20 =20 best regards=20 =20 _______________________________ =20 Erich Plasser phone: +43 - (0) 51707 / 21475 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7300A.BEE1BE3A Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear = Nicolas,=20 Thierry
 
I have reviewd=20 and posted some comments to the draft "Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6"=20
 

Page2

„It is=20 not the intention of this document to imply that all issues must be = solved in=20 the short term.”

Comment: This=20 sentence gives a weak impression for the whole draft. I propose to skip = this=20 sentence.

 

Page3

First sentences of=20 Introduction:

“The=20 use of multiple addresses (allocated to either a single interface or = multiple=20 interfaces) is foreseen to provide ubiquitous, permanent and fault-tolerant = access to=20 the Internet, particularly on mobile nodes which are prone to failure or = sudden=20 lack of connectivity.”

Comment: Multiple = addresses=20 cannot guarantee permanent access, but higher probability for permanent = access,=20 it can provide for less error prone, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Again I have=20 reviewd and posted some comments to the draft "Motivations and = Scenarios=20 for Using Multiple Interfaces and Global=20 Addresses"
 

Page6:

“3.1.  = Need for=20 Ubiquitous Access to the Internet”

Comment: The title = ubiquitous is=20 misleading. Typically an ubiquitous access depends not only on the = number of=20 interfaces on the node but also on the reliability of the network.

 

Page 6:

Comment: Issue 3.1 is = also=20 redirection of a flow as is issue 3.2

 

 

Page 10:

4.1

“Multiple interfaces bound to distinct technologies = can be=20 used to ensure a permanent connectivity is offered, anywhere, anytime, = with=20 anyone.”

Comment: Multiple = addresses=20 cannot guarantee permanent access, but higher probability for permanent = access,=20 it can provide for less error prone, etc.

 

 

Page 10:

4. Goals and = Benefits:

 

Comment:

Extent further = important=20 scenarios followed by multihoming:

pre-authentication, =

bicasting,=20

error=20 correction,

monitoring of = the available=20 interfaces which of them has the best quality, policy-based decision at = which=20 time interface should be changed.

 

 

Comment: Insert the = following=20 aspect in page 17

6.7 Issues:

 

The listed issues are = not=20 complete.

Monitoring of the = available=20 interfaces which of them has the best quality, policy-based decision at = which=20 time interface should be changed.

 

 

 

best = regards 

 
_______________________________
 
Erich Plasser
phone: +43 - (0) 51707 / = 21475
 
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C7300A.BEE1BE3A-- --===============1082036318== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Monami6 mailing list Monami6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 --===============1082036318==-- From monami6-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 12 21:31:06 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H5YfD-0003LA-Lg; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:30:35 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H5YfB-0003Kw-SW for monami6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:30:33 -0500 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.231]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H5Yf6-0002nF-3c for monami6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:30:33 -0500 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h31so960412wxd for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:30:27 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:mime-version:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=RPPESTdOfIvhgHVSttsLLT7pK8NpPVNuj1nInOfe5h44N0obTQuknf7+60OLerliWYk/JToPpHdKxUYF8NY79nP+I3QvBGwOeN1FNgKAUJGtZ2dQhMBnRVMkYyDUQaqzZJsarRsqD4DC9U/EJWKOlAklARffQiOH9YQGKC/LfqE= Received: by 10.70.47.19 with SMTP id u19mr2573677wxu.1168655427673; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:30:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?203.178.139.167? ( [203.178.139.167]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i40sm4314645wxd.2007.01.12.18.30.25; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:30:26 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=CP932; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:30:15 +0900 To: monami6@ietf.org, nemo@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168 Cc: Subject: [Monami6] CFP: Mobiarch07@SIGCOMM07 X-BeenThere: monami6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Monami6 WG List-Id: Monami6 WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: monami6-bounces@ietf.org [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Second International Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture (MobiArch 2007) Kyoto, Japan, August 27, 2007 (to be held with ACM SIGCOMM 2007, August 27-31, 2007) http://user.informatik.uni-goettingen.de/~mobiarch/2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------- With the recent development of technologies in wireless access and mobile devices, user, terminal, and network mobility has become an indispensable component of today's Internet vision, and it is likely to continue in the near future, while affecting the whole architectural design of the future Internet. Yet, issues like efficient mobility management and optimization, locator-identifier split, multihoming, security, and related operational/deployment concerns are still in their early stages of development. Moreover, the Internet architecture, its end-to-end principles, and business models will require rethinking due to the massive penetration of mobility into the Internet. MobiArch'07 welcomes submissions, from both researchers and practitioners, in exploration of recent advances in architectures, protocols, and experiences with emerging technologies on wireless and mobility over the Internet, with an emphasis on wireless infrastructures and mobility patterns for mobility support, new mobility protocols, service discovery, routing and location management, mobile network performance evaluation and modeling, multi-homing, security, architectural impacts and deployment considerations. Topics of Interest: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Topics of MobiArch=81f07 cover all aspects of architectural issues and system support for wireless and mobility in the Internet, including but not limited to: - Impacts of new wireless technologies/services and mobility patterns on the Internet architecture - Architectures and protocols for mobility support in the Internet, ranging from approaches in link, network, transport to session/application layers and cross-layer design - Location management, positioning and data management systems for wireless and mobility - Routing and addressing, including locator/identifier split issues and their impacts to the Internet architecture - IP multihoming including flow distribution and load sharing for wireless and mobility - Performance evaluation, experimentation and modeling of mobility in the Internet - Accounting, access control, security and privacy issues and impacts to Internet architecture - Economic, scalability and deployment issues of mobility infrastructure design - Mechanisms and issues with connecting developing regions into the =20 Internet Following the success of MobiArch'06, the MobiArch'07 workshop will be a single-track one-day workshop. Early stages, position papers, systems and measurement papers will be particularly welcome. The proceedings will be published by the ACM and ACM digital library. Submissions: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Submissions must be made to MobiArch'07 EDAS entry: http://edas.info/5238, following the guidelines in MobiArch'07 webpage: http://user.informatik.uni-goettingen.de/~mobiarch/2007 Important Dates: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Abstract registration: March 20, 2007 Submission Deadline: March 27, 2007 Acceptance Notification: May 15, 2007 Camera-ready version due: June 12, 2007 MobiArch'07 Workshop: August 27, 2007 SIGCOMM'07: August 27-31, 2007 PROGRAM CO-CHAIRS =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Xiaoming Fu, University of Goettingen (Germany) Katherine Guo, Bell Labs (USA) Sue Moon, KAIST (Korea) Ryuji Wakikawa, Keio University (Japan) PUBLICITY CHAIR =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Jon Crowcroft, University of Cambridge (UK) QUESTIONS =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Please consult the Program Co-Chairs (mobiarch@informatik.uni-goettingen.de) if you are uncertain whether your paper falls within the scope of the workshop. _______________________________________________ Monami6 mailing list Monami6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 From monami6-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 14 23:04:55 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6J50-0004to-5S; Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:04:18 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6J4y-0004tg-1Y for monami6@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:04:16 -0500 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.55]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6J4w-0002Gn-Je for monami6@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:04:16 -0500 Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JBW0034W5V5W7@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for monami6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:01:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JBW002325V4KU@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for monami6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:01:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from h50541 ([10.164.5.25]) by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0JBW004XT5V3FI@szxml03-in.huawei.com> for monami6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:01:52 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:01:51 +0800 From: Andy Huang Subject: Re: [Monami6] Need I-D reviews To: Monami6 WG Message-id: <003001c73859$e327f540$1905a40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1; reply-type=original Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <20061218174940.cc0e0fa8.thierry.ernst@inria.fr> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 36b1f8810cb91289d885dc8ab4fc8172 X-BeenThere: monami6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Monami6 WG List-Id: Monami6 WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: monami6-bounces@ietf.org Hi, all I reviewed two drafts and here are some comments. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-01.txt --------------------------------------- section 1: comment: In the fourth paragraph, I advise to replace correspondent nodes with home agent to illustate the fact that CoA will be overwritten. After all, registration with CN is not necessary for mobility management, it's only for route optimization. Section 3.2 "The node can detect a binding invalidation by packets loss or ICMP error messages such as ICMP_UNREACHABLE." comment: packets loss may be a reason to change the binding entry, but in fact it's nearly impossible for node to change the binding entry just because of packets loss, there are too many factor resulting in packets loss. Section 4.3.1 "If needed, the Binding Unique Identifier sub-option is included in the Binding Update, Binding Acknowledgment, Binding Refresh Request, or Binding Error messages." ... "Priority/Status" comment: lack of details , for example, if this sub-option is included in Binding Refresh Request, what does Priority/Status field mean? should it be ingored? Section 5.4 comment: There is a problem. If MN has registered a CoA without BID to HA and then at some time it finds out that it has multiple CoAs due to some reasons, it need to register multiple CoAs with HA. What should it do? first de-registering the CoA without BID and then sending bulk registration to HA? Section 5.5 "Note that when the mobile node does not want to return home even if one of interfaces is attached to the home link, the mobile node MUST disable the interface. Otherwise, address duplication will be observed because the Home Agent still defend the Home Address..." comment: what do address duplication mean here? I don't think the fact that HA defends the HoA will result in address duplication. Section 5.6 " o A mobile node has multiple interfaces, but it wants to send Binding Updates for all Care-of Addresses from a specific interface which has wider bandwidth depending on interface's" comment: About the second situation, it looks stange to me that using Alternate Care-of Address sub-option here. Why not using Care-of address field of Binding Unique Identifier sub-option to carry these CoAs? There is another problem here. If Binding Unique Identifier sub-option with C flag set and Alternate Care-of Address sub-option are both included in the Binding Update, which CoA (CoA in Binding Unique Identifier sub-option or in Alternate Care-of Address sub-option) will be registered? Or such a situation is illegal? By the way, I don't know why these options are called sub-option, such as Alternate Care-of Address sub-option, Binding Unique Identifier sub-option. In RFC3775, there are all called as option. Section 5.7. comment: If MN sends bulk registration with HA, does HA need to reply with multiple Binding Acknowledge? http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-01.txt --------------------------------------- I'm confused by the load sharing and load balancing, what's the difference between them? From the draft it seems to me load sharing is about the network traffic while load balancing is focused on node itself. If so, it's better to describe it in more detail. section 4.6 I don't think preference settings are goals or benefits. It's just a method to realize the goals. Section 5.1 As I said, preference settings are not real goals. In case of one interface and multiple prefixes, preference(address selection) does exist in the view of technology, but what can users get from the this kind of technical preference? Generally speaking, one interface means just one kind of L2 access technology, there is little benefits that users can get. Section 6.1 Address Selection, is it a typo? ---------------------------------------- Best regards Zhigang Huang ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thierry Ernst" To: "ml-ietf-monami6" Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:49 AM Subject: [Monami6] Need I-D reviews > > Dear all, > > The 3 WG I-D as currently available on the Monami6 page > > Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-01.txt > > Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple Interfaces and Global > Addresses > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-01.txt > > Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-01.txt > > > are in pretty good shape, and we think that it is the right time to get > some in-depth reviews. We would be happy to get some volunteers; if you > are willing to, please report to Nicolas and I. > > Thanks, > Monami6 Chairs. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Monami6 mailing list > Monami6@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 > _______________________________________________ Monami6 mailing list Monami6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 From monami6-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 21 23:11:19 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H8qWR-0002oQ-Hu; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:11:07 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H8qWP-0002o0-5b; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:11:05 -0500 Received: from smtp19.orange.fr ([80.12.242.18]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H8qWK-0006nX-QM; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:11:05 -0500 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1918.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2DB541C000B0; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:11:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from will.lan (LPuteaux-151-41-30-75.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr [217.128.82.75]) by mwinf1918.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DB87A1C00098; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:10:59 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20070122041059899.DB87A1C00098@mwinf1918.orange.fr From: Guillaume FORTAINE Organization: Power.org To: ipv6@ietf.org Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:10:45 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701220510.45803.guillaume.fortaine@wanadoo.fr> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Cc: stds-802-21@ieee.org, monami6@ietf.org Subject: [Monami6] Next Generation Networks X-BeenThere: monami6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Monami6 WG List-Id: Monami6 WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: monami6-bounces@ietf.org Misters, Happy New year to you :) ! Let me introduce myself : Guillaume FORTAINE, French engineer in informatic= s. I found your research projects because I am currently researching people wi= th=20 a strong background in Networking. Me and my collaborator have a team of NA= SA=20 and Nokia engineers.We would want to start a project to develop=20 a new standard a la 802.20 but without repeating/or correcting the past err= or=20 from IPv6 ( included in MAC/PHY layer of 802.20). =46or the HandOver part, we have not made the final choice : There are FMIPv6: http://www.fmipv6.org/ or Monami6 : http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/monami6-charter.html or 802.21 : http://www.ieee802.org/21/ Dr. Jose Morales Barroso from L&M Data Communications =A0sent me this link andI believe of interest for you the following paper,= =20 presented at the last eChallenges Conference: =A0 =A0 http://www.lmdata.es/uets/eChallenges-e2006-uets-paper.pdf To quote : "Your comments are welcomed." We look forward to your answer, Best Regards, =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Guillaume _______________________________________________ Monami6 mailing list Monami6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 From monami6-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 22 16:19:34 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H96Za-0001zg-FH; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:19:26 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H96ZY-0001yh-VS; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:19:24 -0500 Received: from outbound-dub.frontbridge.com ([213.199.154.16] helo=outbound2-dub-R.bigfish.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H96ZT-0001BZ-VH; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:19:24 -0500 Received: from outbound2-dub.bigfish.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by outbound2-dub-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9B9648530; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1-dub-R.bigfish.com (unknown [10.5.252.3]) by outbound2-dub.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B841930071; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1-dub (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail1-dub-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED12E1AC818A; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:19:18 +0000 (UTC) X-BigFish: VP Received: by mail1-dub (MessageSwitch) id 1169500758426596_9575; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:19:18 +0000 (UCT) Received: from eu01s244.emea.globalknowledge.com (unknown [84.233.190.171]) by mail1-dub.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B7D6161007D; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:19:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eu01s250.emea.globalknowledge.com ([172.31.2.250]) by eu01s244.emea.globalknowledge.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:19:04 +0000 Received: from eu01s172.emea.globalknowledge.com ([172.31.144.186]) by eu01s250.emea.globalknowledge.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:19:05 +0000 Received: from mail pickup service by eu01s172.emea.globalknowledge.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:19:04 +0000 Received: From mail46-cpk-R.bigfish.com ([207.46.163.10]) by eu01s245.emea.globalknowledge.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR2); id 1169439744271; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:22:24 +0000 Received: from mail46-cpk.bigfish.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail46-cpk-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944F767B3A0 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:22:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail46-cpk (MessageSwitch) id 1169439742266288_22380; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:22:22 +0000 (UCT) Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.ORG [156.154.16.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail46-cpk.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C96567B329 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:22:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H8qWR-0002oK-FB; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:11:07 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H8qWP-0002o0-5b; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:11:05 -0500 Received: from smtp19.orange.fr ([80.12.242.18]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H8qWK-0006nX-QM; Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:11:05 -0500 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1918.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2DB541C000B0; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:11:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from will.lan (LPuteaux-151-41-30-75.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr [217.128.82.75]) by mwinf1918.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DB87A1C00098; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:10:59 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20070122041059899.DB87A1C00098@mwinf1918.orange.fr From: Guillaume FORTAINE Organization: Power.org To: ipv6@ietf.org Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:10:45 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701220510.45803.guillaume.fortaine@wanadoo.fr> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2007 21:19:04.0331 (UTC) FILETIME=[F18C55B0:01C73E6A] X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Cc: stds-802-21@ieee.org, monami6@ietf.org Subject: [Monami6] Next Generation Networks X-BeenThere: monami6@ietf.org Reply-To: Monami6 WG List-Id: Monami6 WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: monami6-bounces@ietf.org Misters, Happy New year to you :) ! Let me introduce myself : Guillaume FORTAINE, French engineer in informatic= s. I found your research projects because I am currently researching people wi= th=20 a strong background in Networking. Me and my collaborator have a team of NA= SA=20 and Nokia engineers.We would want to start a project to develop=20 a new standard a la 802.20 but without repeating/or correcting the past err= or=20 from IPv6 ( included in MAC/PHY layer of 802.20). =46or the HandOver part, we have not made the final choice : There are FMIPv6: http://www.fmipv6.org/ or Monami6 : http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/monami6-charter.html or 802.21 : http://www.ieee802.org/21/ Dr. Jose Morales Barroso from L&M Data Communications =A0sent me this link andI believe of interest for you the following paper,= =20 presented at the last eChallenges Conference: =A0 =A0 http://www.lmdata.es/uets/eChallenges-e2006-uets-paper.pdf To quote : "Your comments are welcomed." We look forward to your answer, Best Regards, =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Guillaume -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Monami6 mailing list Monami6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 From monami6-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 22 18:15:35 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H98Ng-0006D1-KT; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:15:16 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H98Nf-0006Ci-B3; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:15:15 -0500 Received: from smtp23.orange.fr ([193.252.23.111]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H98Nd-0007gN-1c; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:15:15 -0500 Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2306.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0C7D61C0009F; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:15:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from will.lan (LPuteaux-151-41-30-75.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr [217.128.82.75]) by mwinf2306.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BAF3A1C00082; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:15:09 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20070122231509765.BAF3A1C00082@mwinf2306.orange.fr From: Guillaume FORTAINE Organization: Power.org To: "Daniel Park" Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:14:50 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701230014.50363.guillaume.fortaine@wanadoo.fr> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, stds-802-21@ieee.org, monami6@ietf.org Subject: [Monami6] Re: Next Generation Networks X-BeenThere: monami6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Monami6 WG List-Id: Monami6 WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: monami6-bounces@ietf.org On Monday 22 January 2007 23:08, Daniel Park wrote: > Guillaume, > > First off, your question seems a bit ambiguous. Do you want to > transmit IPv6 packets over 802.20 networks ? If yes, it is not a big > issues. Stupid question : What is an IPv6 packet ? If it was so "easy", I believe that we would already be in an IPv6 World ... > Rather, you should study on how to transmit IPv6 packets over > 802.20 networks. As IP ( v4 & v6 ) is already in the MAC/PHY layer, I don't see what we can analyse here ... It is not like 16ng ( below ) ... > IETF has many experiences regarding IPv6 over foo. If > you are awaring of any specific characteristics of 802.20 networks, > these should be analyzed first, then bring it to IETF. Example: 16ng > (IP over 802.16 networks). Also, choosing a specific solution among > FMIP, Momani, 802.21 depends on your purpose as well as application. > In short, IETF is ready for helping out with the working in every L2 > technologies. > > Hope this helps. Thank you :) > Daniel Best Regards, Guillaume _______________________________________________ Monami6 mailing list Monami6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 From monami6-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 23 08:51:15 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9M3H-0006r0-Il; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:51:07 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9M3G-0006qv-NU for monami6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:51:06 -0500 Received: from bugs.comnets.uni-bremen.de ([134.102.186.10] helo=mario.comnets.uni-bremen.de) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9M3F-00069M-E5 for monami6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:51:06 -0500 Received: by mario.comnets.uni-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 33) id 52E1113EA4; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:51:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from s4.fb1.uni-bremen.de (s4.fb1.uni-bremen.de [134.102.186.54]) by www.comnets.uni-bremen.de (Horde MIME library) with HTTP for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:51:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20070123145103.8ffkq5cmpn6s8wso@www.comnets.uni-bremen.de> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:51:03 +0100 From: umr@comnets.uni-bremen.de To: Monami6 WG Subject: [Monami6] draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03 implementation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab X-BeenThere: monami6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Monami6 WG List-Id: Monami6 WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: monami6-bounces@ietf.org Hello everybody at Monami6, I am implementing Flow Management support in nemo-mcoa following the draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03 draft. I am using nemo-0.2-mcoa from Nautilus as a basis for my implementation. I have succeeded in implementing a basic flow management support in nemo-0.2-mcoa. I will continue sharing my experiences in this list. One of the issues to report is that in the PRO field in fid mobility option. It is said in the draft that it is a 4 bit field (section 3.1) and hence can carry unsigned integers from 0 to 15. However the draft also says value 255 should be put to PRO field in order to "Remove a flow binding". Since 255 can not be accomodated in a 4 bit PRO field I have used 15 (the maximum 4 bit number) currently in my implementation and it's working fine. Regards, Umar Toseef ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ Monami6 mailing list Monami6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 From monami6-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 24 05:03:35 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9eyQ-00083D-CY; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 05:03:22 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9eyP-000838-R9 for monami6@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 05:03:21 -0500 Received: from smtp.netregistry.net ([202.124.241.204] helo=smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9eyN-00026R-5Q for monami6@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 05:03:21 -0500 Received: from [196.205.136.253] (helo=PC20005) by smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net protocol: esmtpa (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1H9ey9-00037q-Rd for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:03:09 +1100 From: "Hesham Soliman" To: "'Monami6 WG'" Subject: RE: [Monami6] draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03 implementation Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:02:56 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <20070123145103.8ffkq5cmpn6s8wso@www.comnets.uni-bremen.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Thread-Index: Acc+9ZwW9Jz7LSgrQc2Dk68EQPsqEwAqQYGA X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 X-BeenThere: monami6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Monami6 WG List-Id: Monami6 WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: monami6-bounces@ietf.org Message-Id: Hello Umar, Thank you for catching this error and reporting it. We'll fix this in the next rev. Please keep us posted with more issues. Thanks, Hesham > -----Original Message----- > From: umr@comnets.uni-bremen.de [mailto:umr@comnets.uni-bremen.de] > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:51 AM > To: Monami6 WG > Subject: [Monami6] draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03 > implementation > > Hello everybody at Monami6, > > I am implementing Flow Management support in nemo-mcoa following the > draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03 draft. I am using > nemo-0.2-mcoa from > Nautilus as a basis for my implementation. I have succeeded > in implementing a > basic flow management support in nemo-0.2-mcoa. I will > continue sharing my > experiences in this list. > > One of the issues to report is that in the PRO field in fid > mobility option. It > is said in the draft that it is a 4 bit field (section 3.1) > and hence can carry > unsigned integers from 0 to 15. However the draft also says > value 255 should be > put to PRO field in order to "Remove a flow binding". Since > 255 can not be > accomodated in a 4 bit PRO field I have used 15 (the maximum > 4 bit number) > currently in my implementation and it's working fine. > > Regards, > Umar Toseef > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > _______________________________________________ > Monami6 mailing list > Monami6@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 > _______________________________________________ Monami6 mailing list Monami6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 From monami6-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 31 10:02:21 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCGyN-00052V-F5; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:02:07 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCGyM-00052N-LE for monami6@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:02:06 -0500 Received: from [2001:660:7301:3192:211:43ff:fea3:7e4b] (helo=laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCGyK-00011m-Qg for monami6@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:02:06 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2006.08.14) with ESMTP id l0VF1rTi019796 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:01:53 +0100 Received: from l2.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (l2.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.4]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2006.08.14) with ESMTP id l0VF1nHA019786 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:01:50 +0100 Received: from [192.44.77.188] (dhcpe188.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.188]) (authenticated bits=0) by l2.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l0VF1nnQ016305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:01:49 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <5B32D34C21BAB14AAE47FF638BF82F0001B5B532@nets13ga.ww300.siemens.net> References: <5B32D34C21BAB14AAE47FF638BF82F0001B5B532@nets13ga.ww300.siemens.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <915BA3D6-4326-45DD-AB23-3BB86895F6EA@enst-bretagne.fr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Nicolas Montavont Subject: MIP6 analysis [was: Re: [Monami6] Need I-D reviews ] Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:01:27 +0100 To: Monami6 WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at enst-bretagne.fr X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 3fbd9b434023f8abfcb1532abaec7a21 X-BeenThere: monami6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Monami6 WG List-Id: Monami6 WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: monami6-bounces@ietf.org Hi Andy, Erich and all, I am trying to update draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-01.txt. First, thank to Erich Plasser and Andy Huang for their reviews. I =20 encorage more people to read this draft to provide more feedback. I just would like to check with the WG if the changes I want to make =20 are ok for everybody. I'll consider no responses to this email as a Yes from the working =20 group to the proposed changes. Here are some proposed changes : On Jan 4, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Plasser, Erich wrote: > Dear Nicolas, Thierry > > I have reviewd and posted some comments to the draft "Analysis of =20 > Multihoming in Mobile IPv6" > > Page2 > =84It is not the intention of this document to imply that all issues =20= > must be solved in the short term.=94 > Comment: This sentence gives a weak impression for the whole draft. =20= > I propose to skip this sentence. Agree to remove the sentence. > > Page3 > First sentences of Introduction: > =93The use of multiple addresses (allocated to either a single =20 > interface or multiple interfaces) is foreseen to provide =20 > ubiquitous, permanent and fault-tolerant access to the Internet, =20 > particularly on mobile nodes which are prone to failure or sudden =20 > lack of connectivity.=94 > Comment: Multiple addresses cannot guarantee permanent access, but =20 > higher probability for permanent access, it can provide for less =20 > error prone, etc. Agree to change "permanent" to higher probability for permanent access" [skip the part on draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-=20 scenario-01.txt which will be dealt with in another email] On Jan 15, 2007, at 5:01 AM, Andy Huang wrote: > Hi, all > > I reviewed two drafts and here are some comments. > > [skip draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-01.txt which will be dealt with =20 in another email] > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-=20 > analysis-01.txt > --------------------------------------- > I'm confused by the load sharing and load balancing, what's the =20 > difference between them? =46rom the draft it seems to me load sharing =20= > is about the network traffic while load balancing is focused on =20 > node itself. If so, it's better to describe it in more detail. It is stated that terms in this document are those defined in =20 references 4, 1, 3. In reference 3, sections 4.4 and 4.5 gives clear =20 definition of load sharing and load balancing. I don't think we need to re-write or copy/paste those definition in =20 this document, so I propose to let it as it is. > > section 4.6 > I don't think preference settings are goals or benefits. It's just =20 > a method to realize the goals. I agree with you. I propose to remove preference settings from all =20 goals and benefits section in the document. > > Section 5.1 > As I said, preference settings are not real goals. In case of one =20 > interface and multiple prefixes, preference(address selection) does =20= > exist in the view of technology, but what can users get from the =20 > this kind of technical preference? Generally speaking, one =20 > interface means just one kind of L2 access technology, there is =20 > little benefits that users can get. > > Section 6.1 > Address Selection, is it a typo? > ---------------------------------------- It seems :) But I didn't find it in the doc... did you read 01 version? Thank you, Nicolas > > > Best regards > Zhigang Huang > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thierry Ernst" =20 > > To: "ml-ietf-monami6" > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 12:49 AM > Subject: [Monami6] Need I-D reviews > > >> >> Dear all, >> >> The 3 WG I-D as currently available on the Monami6 page >> >> Analysis of Multihoming in Mobile IPv6 >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-=20 >> analysis-01.txt >> >> Motivations and Scenarios for Using Multiple Interfaces and Global >> Addresses >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-=20= >> motivation-scenario-01.txt >> >> Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-=20 >> multiplecoa-01.txt >> >> >> are in pretty good shape, and we think that it is the right time =20 >> to get >> some in-depth reviews. We would be happy to get some volunteers; =20 >> if you >> are willing to, please report to Nicolas and I. >> >> Thanks, >> Monami6 Chairs. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Monami6 mailing list >> Monami6@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Monami6 mailing list > Monami6@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 > _______________________________________________ Monami6 mailing list Monami6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6