1. 1 Monami6 Working Group IETF 66 July 2006 Montréal, Canada Thierry Ernst (INRIA) Nicolas Montavont (ENST Bretagne)

2. 2 Agenda bashing 1. Welcome, agenda bashing, WG documents status........... 10 minutes draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-00 draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-01 draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-00 Chairs 2. Utilizing home and foreign interfaces simultaneously.........5 minutes draft-aso-monami6-multiple-forwarding-01.txt Benjamin Koh 3. A Filter Rule Mechanism for Multi-access Mobile IPv6…...10 minutes draft-larsson-monami6-filter-rules-00 Henrik Levkowetz 4. Flow binding in Mobile IPv6..................................……......10 minutes draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-01 Hesham Soliman 5. A Schema Fragment for Flow Distribution..................…....10 minutes draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow-distribution-policy-01 Ryuji Wakikawa 6. "Flow binding policies exchange" open discussion………..15 minutes

3. WG deliverables Nov 2006: Submit Motivations and Scenario to IESG Nov 2006: Submit Analysis of the use of Multiple Simultaneous Care-of Addresses and Home Agent addresses in Mobile Ipv6 Dec 2006: Submit Multiple CoA Registration to IESG Jun 2007: Submit Flow/binding policies exchange to IESG We need reviews for the 3 first items

4. 4 draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming- motivation-scenario-00 Received reviews –Global: many scenarios are too futuristic –Draft is under revision and comments are being addressed

5. 5 draft-ietf-monami6-mipv6-analysis-01 Minor modifications –Definition of a multihomed MN –Requirements –Editorials

6. 6 Definition of a multihomed MN OLD: A MN operating MIPv6 is said multihomed when it simultaneously has (i) multiple HoAs (ii) multiple CoAs; and/or (iii) one HoA and one CoA configured on different interfaces. NEW: (iv) established tunnels with multiple HA addresses

7. 7 Change in requirements Remove the following requirement: “ A MN must have either multiple interfaces with at least a single valid global IP address on each interface, or a single interface with more than one valid global address, or a single interface with one valid global address and multiple HoAs.”

8. 8 Bicasting Text related to bicasting has been merged within the other goals (load balancing, redundancy)

9. Multiple Care-of Address Registration draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-00.txt Ryuji Wakikawa Thierry Ernst Ken Nagami

10. Status Submitted draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-00.txt as MONAMI6 WG Document (June 12, 2006) Discussions on ML Several Editorial comments (will be fixed in the next revision) “Flowbinding vs MCoA” The goal of MCoA is to support Multiple Care-of Address Registration on Mobile IPv6 The flow management is not scope in this document and can be built on top of MCoA

11. “Bulk Registration” is now ready BID sub-option was updated to support Bulk Registration for BU, BA, BRR, BE Priority/Status field can be used to store respective priority and error code of BID C flag identify the CoA is in the BID sub-option R flag indicates Removable request of the CoA

12. Multiple IFs support at home link Adding texts and Figure in Appendix-A HA has alternate link for MN returning home –MN obtains a CoA and registers it to HA –HA can maintain multiple bindings even if a MN returns home HA Home Link Foreign Link MN INTERNET BU

13. 13 Flow/binding policies exchange Charter has 2 items that say –“A protocol extension to Mobile IPv6 (RFC 3775) and NEMO Basic Support (RFC 3963) to support the registration of multiple Care-of Addresses at a given Home Agent address [Standard Track]. = How to register multiple CoAs –A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the Home Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the Care- of Address and Home Agent address [Standard Track]. = How to use multiple CoAs

14. 14 What’s the idea of “flow / binding policies exchange”? A MN/MR may be reached via several paths within the Internet (multiple CoAs, multiple HoAs, multiple HA addresses) Define a mechanism to set preferences on the usage of addresses

15. 15 Status of the current documents 3 rd item (MCoA) –WG document (Ryuji) 4 th item (flows/binding policies exchange) –3 individual I-Ds Draft-larsson-filter-rules-00 Draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow-distribution-policy-01 Draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-01 (merge of 3 former drafts)

16. 16 High level issues (1/2) Should we bind a solution “on top”of MCoA? –Yes -> ok but then such a solution MUST be present to use MCoA –No -> So how MCoA can be used without any preferences exchange? Should we define the flow/binding policies exchange as extensions to MIP6/NEMO Basic Support? –Yes -> see draft-soliman: network efficiency –No -> see draft-mitsuya: let door open to use the policies exchange in other mobility/multihoming protocols

17. 17 Number of documents If flow/binding policies exchange is an extension to MIP6/NEMO Basic Support, should we have a single document with multiple care-of addresses registration capabilities and optional flows binding policies exchange or do we need 2 documents?