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

[George Tsirtsis <[e-mail]>]

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.

>
>