Re: [mif] mif Digest, Vol 5, Issue 18

Hi Min

Thank you for your reply. Please check inline.

Yuanchen

2009/3/17 Min Hui <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com>:
> Hi, Yuanchen
>
> For the first question, there are two situations.
>
> 1. the host sends data using one of its interfaces, and the correspond
> node reply to the address of this interface. it's has no problem, the
> host will receive the reply by the same interface.
> 2. the network side initiate the communication, the host name will be
> used in the DNS query to get a list of addresses, which one should be
> choosed depends on the network side policy.
yuanchen> i agree with this scenario that the DNS query may result
in a list of addresses. But i still don't understand what "network
side initiated"
means. IP flow is end-to-end and the other end node should
make the DNS query and make the decision. Do you mean that the other end
node should get some information from somewhere in the network to help the
decision making? I think the requirement should be clarified.

>
> For the second question, the element would be the gateway which in
> charge of all the interfaces, e.g. PDN GW in 3GPP architecture, LMA in
> PMIP domain.
yuanchen> I do not think LMA is a good example for MIF, since the LMA is for
mobility management. PND GW in 3GPP also has the function of LMA.
Such scenario sounds more like extension to PMIP for multiple interface node
support. Netlmm may be better place for such topic.

>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> - Hui Min
>
> 2009/3/17 ma yc <ycma610103@gmail.com>:
>> Hi, Min Hui,
>>
>> I an also confused on the requirement 5.
>>
>> As for the the flow directed to the multiple
>> interface node, why does the network side need
>> to decide which interface to forward the data?
>>
>> The dst address of the packet should be used for routing.
>> The network just forwards the data according to the routing table.
>> I do not see the needs for interface selection to route the flow.
>>
>> Also if you have the use case, i have the same concern
>> as macelo, which elememt will be in chcarge of
>> distributing the traffic?
>>
>> Thank you.
>> Regards
>> Yuanchen
>>
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:13:29 +0100
>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
>>> Subject: Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-02
>>> To: Min Hui <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>
>>> Message-ID: <49BE88B9.6010306@it.uc3m.es>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>
>>
>>> >  5 Network side should be capable of distributing the IP flow
>>> >  according to some parameters, such as IP address prefix, network type
>>> >  and so on.
>>> >
>>> > i don't understnad what you mean by this one, could you expand?
>>> >
>>> > A: That is the policy in the network side. Corresponding to the policy
>>> > of sending data mentioned in the fourth bullet, the policy of
>>> > receiving data is also needed, which can be apply in the network side.
>>> > The network can determine forward a specific IP flow to which
>>> > interface of the destination host according to the policy.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> right, i see what you mean. I am not sure which element of the network
>>> would do that... i mean, are you assuming that all interfaces are being
>>> connected to the same ISP? If not, i am not sure how would you do this...
>>> > Regards, marcelo
>>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> mif mailing list
>> mif@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>>
>