Y-G Hong , J-C Lee, J-S Park, H-J Kim ETRI IETF-64 mo

1. Virtual network interface for multiple interfaces in a mobile node using Mobile IPv6draft-hong-multipleif-mn-pb-statement-00.txtdraft-hong-virtualif-mn-mipv6-00.txt Y-G Hong, J-C Lee, J-S Park, H-J Kim ETRI IETF-64 monami6 Meeting @Vancouver

2. Goals of these drafts • Identify some problems of multiple interfaces in a MN or MR • Mobile IPv6-specific issues • General network issues • Consideration for Heterogeneous Environments • Propose a virtual network interface model for multiple interfaces in a MN or MR

3. Problem Statements • Mobile IPv6 Specific Issues • Determination of network movement • Receiving RA message from different interfaces • General Network Issues • Updating the relation between a destination address and a network interface • Consideration for Heterogeneous Environments • Using Mobile IPv6 and NEMO in IPv4 based network

4. Issues in monami6 ML for Problem Statements (1/3) • For Mobile IPv6 Specific Issues • About MIPL, the current code has some parts related to interface preference mechanisms (10/25, by Romain) • The problem statement sticks too much to implementation issues, not to generic issues related to multihoming. (10/25, by Romain) • The problem you describe in your draft is an implementation specific issue, as pointed out by Romain Kuntz. In draft-montavont, we have a section "considerations for MIP6 implementation". So, at best some text could be added there. (10/26, by Thierry) • Using RA reception to determine a movement or even to determine the availibility/unavailibility of an interface is an information that we want to consider in general. Note that in our revision, we changed media detection to failure detection, in order to consider all failure that can occur on the entire path between the MN and its CN. It can be on the media (interface connected or not at L2, or no IPv6 prefix on the link), or a failure on the path between the MN and the HA, or between the HA and the CN. So, for me, RA reception is part of failure detection. We may have to add text to explicitly mention that it is considered. Anyway, I think we have lot of work to clarify failure detection.(10/28, by Nicolas)

5. Issues in monami6 ML for Problem Statements (2/3) • For General Network Issues • The problem yoiu describe in your draft is related, when considering a mobile node, to the HoA address, and you ranged it into a "generic issue" because it can apply to a fixed node with multiple interfaces, right? I think this is a problem in which SHIM6 is qualified (how to change the locator, but not the identifier). I agree that our text in draft-montavont should be improved in a fashion similar to draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues where such issues are well described. (10/26 by Thierry) • Even though this problem that end node should update the relation between destination address and specific network interface to prevent dissonance between active network interface and changed IP address was happened in fixed end node, I do not agree that the SHIM6 should qualify this problem. AFAIK, SHIM6 is considering environment where an end node has multiple paths (multiple IPv6 address prefix) by connecting to different ISP that means site multihoming. So site multihomed an end node does not have necessarily multiple interfaces and it only has to obtain multiple addresses from different site exit routers. But the mobile node equipped multiple interfaces are down for discussion in MONAMI6 WG clearly. Therefore, if we have consensus, which this problem must be solved for using multiple interfaces, I think that the MONAMI6 is more suitable place than SHIM6. (10/27 By Taewan You)

6. Issues in monami6 ML for Problem Statements (3/3) • For Heterogeneous Environments Issues • About Heterogeneous Environments, you speak about v4-only access on CDMA interface. I believe you never roam on the CDMA interface, so a tunneling system would fit to your problem (l2tp, or DTCP). If not you may take a look at draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt (10/25 by Romain) • The concern described in your draft is valid and is addressed in draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt. Note that I do not consider it has a multihoming issues at all: it is right that nodes equipped with multiple interfaces may be more concerned with this issue, but this could also happen for a node with a single interface (for instance, a node with a WI-FI interface roaming between an IPv6 wireless LAN and an IPv4 wireless LAN. We already came across this problem (10/26 By Thierry)

7. Issues in monami6 ML for Problem Statements • For general Issues • Actually, I kind of agree that more text could be useful in draft-montavont., in the same fashion as in draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues under the issue "Media Detection". However, I think we disagree on the classification as I wouldn't consider it as a MIP6-specific issue.(10/26 by Thierry)

8. Architecture of virtual I/F model

9. Operations of virtual I/F model • When a Mobile IPv6/NEMO starts • Virtual interface is configured to send/receive packets • Path between one real network interface and virtual interface is made • When sending packets • Virtual interface -> Real network interface • When receiving packets • Real network interface -> Virtual interface

10. Issues in monami6 ML for Virtual Interface model • The virtual interface model is a good idea when you plan to use several interfaces, but not at the same time. What if you want to use several interfaces at the same time? (10/25, by Romain) • To use multiple interfaces simultaneously, you have to register the CoA of each interface to the Home Agent(s) (ie send several BUs), handle policies for each interface etc. You may also have events on several interfaces at the same time. How can you handle this with the virtual interface model? (10/27, by Romain) • I was speaking about several "physical interface" that you want to use _simultaneously_, ie for example by registering the CoA of _each_ interface (as proposed in draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa for example). I am not sure how you can deal with that with only one virtual interface. (10/28, by Romain)

11. Next Steps ? • Our Problem Statements can be added into some related documents and we can improve Nicolas’s document • Virtual Interface model can be one solution to handle multiple interface node without modifying Mobile IPv6 and NEMO • If there is some consensus, we would like to improve the virtual interface document • Hopefully part of this WG