NETEXT Rev: 2 Network-Based Mobility Extensions (NetExt) WG meeting Thursday, August 2nd, 2012 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I (Regency E) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Logistics (Bluesheets, minutes takers, jabber, agenda bashing) 5 mins 2. WG Status update Chairs 5 Mins 3. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility 20 Mins I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob CJ Bernardos 4. Prefix Delegation for Proxy Mobile IPv6 5 Mins I-D: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip Carl Williams 5. Quality of Service Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6 15 Mins I-D:draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos M. Liebsch 6. EAP Attributes for WiFi - EPC Integration 10 Mins I-D: draft-ietf-netext-wifi-epc-eap-attributes R. Koodli Proposals for consideration: 1. Mapping PMIP Quality of Service in WiFi 10 mins I-D: draft-kaippallimalil-netext-pmip-qos-wifi J. Kaippallimalil 2. Network Mobility with Proxy Mobile IPv6 10 mins I-D: draft-petrescu-netext-pmip-nemo A. Petrescu 3. PMIPv6 Multihoming Support for Flow Mobility 10 Mins I-D: draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions B. Sarikaya 4. Update Notifications for PMIPv6 10 Mins I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-update-notifications S. Krishnan Minutes 29.275 discussion Rajeev: request people to look at draft.ietf.netext.5149bis – service selection for MIPv6/PMIPv6 Behcet: was this draft developed in NETEXT? R: It now belongs here and if we have the expertise we should get the job done QoS in WiFi ?? Carlos - Network Flow Mobility draft Rajeev: do you need to do more than what RFC6089 does? Carlos: reuse as much as possible Rajeev: do we need to repeat then? We should simply refer to 6089 Behcet: specify details Carlos: we are dealing with data structures Rajeev: we are defining data structures Behcet: LMA initiative or MAG initiative? Carlos: The draft does not specify details Rajeev: take to mailing list Q&A? Juan Carlos: comments addressed and ready for WGLC BS: comments not addressed. Other documents suggest new functionalities RK: other documents can be addressed as a new work, but not in the context of this document. Sri: please do not hijack document. This doc reflects consensus of the group and it is almost ready. Any other work should be looked at separately Carl Jouni document Carl Williams: document stable and asking for WGLC Jouni: fill the gap for non-3gpp systems that want to support PCC Rajeev: document needs to be reviewed, and this is the last chance JCZ: Are these vendor-specific options on top of the normal ones? JK: if there is conflict between policies? No details provided yet RK: Seems like there should be one or the other Rajeev EPC-EAP attributes document Tricci: do we need to update the registry? Jouni: This is informational Rajeev: if we can get the IANA assignation then we can use it in EAP New items: J. Kaippallimalil, QoS info for PMIPv6 document Rajeev: do you have per user/client knowledge? Ken: you don’t need to split this up. You just want to map the two architecturally presenter: there could be multiple mobility sessions in the same MAG, related to the same UE MAC address. Also there could be an aggregated amount of BW for a single UE. Ken: it would be good to abstract those Text to be provided about how to aggregate BW Interest to work on this draft? Ken: Work is interesting. Work in 11? K: more info is needed. No specific semantics for 11e, so perhaps 802.1p semantics are needed Rajeev: There are different combinations, so it is hard to make a 1-to-1 mapping. Where to drop SVR. It might be useful to write it down anyway. Tiru: how can you enforce in this in case of RTCWeb where multiple application use the same 5-tuple? K: need to look at that Alex presentation: Sri: SLAC requires changes. Why not assign /63 and then delegate the /64 delegation? Alex: good idea. I will take note Rajeev: you can take /62 or whatever and delegate Jouni: the spec is defined for /64 Behcet: You need to modify the host Suresh: by definition SLAC won’t work if not 128. Ken: (???) Behcet presentation: Ken/Sri: It is not true that for 5213 “Each interface creates a different independent mobility session at the LMA, just like an interface from another MN”. Rajeev: not clear what the problem is Carlos: this is covered by the current solution draft Rajeev: needs to clarify problem Sri: ??? Marco: Fail to see why it is a problem to maintain flow mobility rules. Also not clear what it has to do with LMA initiated. Behcet: needs to indicate if an address is a home or visited Rajeev: call of hands for clear understanding the problem: consensus that there is no clear understanding if the problem – please reformulate problem on the list Behcet: Extra slide for WiFi issues for PMIP (e.g. 6085 addresses how to handle WiFi with PMIP) Rajeev: Please do not mix presentations. Next time will be pushed to the end or out Suresh: PMIP Update notifications Kostas: Is there IPR? Suresh: not that I’m aware of, and if there is any we will declare Brian: People should read BCP79. IESG is currently looking at a 10 sec slide that can be shown at every session. We do not want to see declarations in the RFC queue, in IETF review or in WGLC. The earlier you declare the better you will be.