Re: [MEXT] FW: Comments to draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-00.txt

[George Tsirtsis <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Yungui Wang<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Got it. Thanks. However, in case 2, I mean that there needs
> multiple TS(s) for the non-continuous ports based traffic flows.

GT> True, for non-continuous ports you need multiple TSs, but can we
do better than that?

> In addition, it seems that the destination address is not required
> to be defined in the TS? Isn't the MN's HoA? The HA always knows
> it.

GT> If the MN supports NEMO then you might want to identify specific
IP address even for destination..

>
> B.R.
> Yungui
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Tsirtsis [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 4:46 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: FW: [MEXT] Comments to
> draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-00.txt
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Yungui Wang<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> > Hello
>> >
>> > I had sent below comment at before. Re-forwarding it here.
> Welcome
>> > your clarification. Thanks.
>> >
>> > 1, Could the IPv4/IPv6 binary traffic selector sub-options
>> be encoded
>> > as the TLV/TV (type, length, value) format?
>> > Consideration: TLV/TV format can save size of message.
>> > case 1, It may be not necessary to describe the traffic
>> which includes
>> > all the parameters in the sub-option. e.g. the traffic is
>> described as
>> > "UDP 21"
>> > case 2, On the other hand, one parameter may appear
>> multiple times in
>> > the sub-option to describe the traffic. e.g. the traffic
>> includes two
>> > flow which may be presented as TCP port 5000 and 5002.
>> >
>>
>> GT> I am not sure I understand. The existing format would result
> to
>> (using IPv4 TS for the example):
>> -  case 1: in a 2+5byte suboption since only B flag
>> (Protocol=UDP), and I flag (Dst port low=21) would be set
>> - case 2 in 2+7byte suboption since B flag  (Protocol=UDP),
>> I flag (Dst portlow=5001), and K flag (Dst portlow=5001) would
> be set.
>> How does the TLV/TV format allow for more efficient packing?
>>
>> > 2, ?Could the Ethernet service flow description sub-option be
> also
>> > introduced in this document?
>> > Consideration:
>> > The Ethernet service sub-option is senseful when Ethernet
>> service is
>> > supported by MIP (referring to
>> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wu-mip4-ether-02.txt
> ).
>> >
>> > The format of the Ethernet serice sub-option can be:
>> >
>> > - Ethernet serice sub-option (TLV/TV format)
>> > 0x01 ? 48bit,source MAC address
>> > 0x02 ? 48bit,destination MAC address
>> > 0x03 ? 16bit,ethernet type
>> > 0x04 ? 16bit,vlan tag
>> >
>> > - Ethernet serice sub-option (proto header format)
>> >
>> > ?0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>> ? 3 ?0 1 2
>> > 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>> >
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > |S|D|E|V| ? ? ? Reservered ? ? ?| ? (S) Source MAC Address ? ?
> ?|
>> >
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(S) Source MAC Address ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ? |
>> >
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > | ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (D)Destination MAC Address ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> ?|
>> >
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > |(D)Destination MAC Address ? ? | ? (E) Ethernet Type ? ? ? ?
> ? |
>> >
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> > | ? ? ? ?(V) VLAN tag ? ? ? ? ? |
>> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> >
>> > B.R.
>> > Yungui
>> >
>>
>> GT> Given that draft-wu-mip4 is not a WG draft yet I do not
> think it
>> makes sense to start adding TSs for this already in a WG doc.
>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>