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

[Yungui Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hello

Got it. Thanks. However, in case 2, I mean that there needs
multiple TS(s) for the non-continuous ports based traffic flows. 
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.

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.
> 
> >
> >
>