NETLMM BOF IETF 64 James Kempf, DoCoMo Labs USA Phil Roberts, Motorola Labs November 7, 2005

Agenda 1 min. - Co-chairs, Agenda bashing 30 min. - All, WG discussion of Margaret's questions 5 min. - Kent Leung, Cisco, "NetLMM using Proxy Mobile IPv6“ 5 min. - Gerardo Giaretta, TIM Labs, draft-giaretta-netlmm-protocol-00.txt 5 min. - Mohan Parthasarathy, Nokia, draft-mohan-nflm-proto-00.txt 5 min. - Katsutoshi Nisida, NTT DoCoMo, draft-wood-netlmm-emp-base-00.txt 5 min. - Ippei Akiyoshi, NEC, draft-akiyoshi-netlmm-protocol-00.txt 5 min. - Jung HeeYoung, ETRI, draft-jung-mipshop-nsfho-00.txt

Latest Charter

Margaret’s Questions and Possible Answers* *answers reflecting discussion on the mailing list

Question 1 Question: –Are there any proposed solutions in this space? Answer: –Yes, see drafts cited on agenda and presentations in second half hour.

Question 2 Question –What is the relationship of this proposed work to similar activities in IEEE or other standards bodies? Answer –As far as we know, there is no work in IEEE on this problem. –WiMax Forum and 3GPP have some ongoing work on mobility management in advanced cellular networks for which NETLMM could be a candidate solution. –However, neither WiMax Forum nor 3GPP has formally requested IETF to work on this problem.

Question 3 Question –How is this related to CAPWAP and/or the L2 mobility management schemes that CAPWAP is based upon? Answer –CAPWAP runs between a WLAN controller and access points. Solves problem of control of access points and traffic management between access points and controller. –NETLMM runs between access routers and a mobility anchor. Solves problem of localized mobility within a broader domain potentially covering several CAPWAP controllers. Never sees the access points –CAPWAP and NETLMM solve two complementary but separate problems. –Most WLAN switch products today also have proprietary, non- interoperable L2-specific protocols for providing “IP mobility” (marketing speak for localized mobility management). –NETLMM would be an interoperable, L2-independent protocol available should the switch vendors choose to implement it.

Question 4 Question –The charter doesn't mention security requirements and/or have any specific deliverables related to security. Answer –The charter says: Security will be defined for the protocol based on standard IETF security protocols, but should maintain configuration flexibility for varying deployment circumstances. –Is more needed?

Question 5 Question –Are there any specific drafts that are expected to become WG items? Answer –Yes, they are: draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-ps-00.txt – problem statement draft-kempf-netlmm-nohost-req-00.txt – requirements –Plan is to update drafts based on list discussion and issue WG Last Call as soon as the WG is chartered.

Protocol Presentations