Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal

MIF focuses on the following issues, and the issue BBF is bringing up is a totally  separate issue.
It's about how two links can be aggregated for capacity and reliability boost.

So, I agree with Sri that this is not a MIF WG issue.

The MIF problem statement document [RFC6418] enumerates the problems into 3 categories:
  1. Lack of consistent and distinctive management of configuration elements, associated with different networks.
  2. Inappropriate mixed use of configuration elements, associated with different networks, in the course of a particular network activity / connection.
  3. Use of a particular network, not consistent with the intent of the scenario / involved parties, leading to connectivity failure and / or other undesired consequences.

Alper

On Nov 11, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:

> Hi Hui,
> 
> The BBF requirement as presented in the BBF documents and as interpreted in draft-seite and draft-lhwxz is about enabling a CPE device to attach to multiple access network and perform flow management. However, I look at it, I see this this is a mobility requirement and is really not in the scope of MIF WG. The BBF requirement in question is all about flow switching or flow splitting across access systems. I'm not sure why this work belongs MIF and not DMM which is chartered to handle all mobility use-cases. We have discussed this specific use-case of flow splitting during MIF formation and explicitly disallowed MIF WG from taking up such work. The following is the quote from the MIF chartered text. Also, the MIF WG was primarily looking at issues for a host attached to multiple access networks, but the hybrid access is about a CPE attached to multiple networks. I really think this work should be done in DMM and we did present the requirements in the last IETF meeting.
> 
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mif/charter/
> 
> No work will be done to enable traffic flows to move from one interface to another. The group recognizes existing work on mechanisms that require peer or network support for moving traffic flows such as RFC 5206, RFC 4980 and the use of multiple care-of addresses in Mobile IPv6. This group does not work on or impact such mechanisms. Future work in this area requires rechartering the working group or asking other, specialized working groups (such as DHC or 6MAN) to deal with specific issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> From: Hui Deng <denghui@chinamobile.com>
> Date: Friday, October 31, 2014 4:50 AM
> To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>, 'Xueli' <xueli@huawei.com>, "pierrick.seite@orange.com" <pierrick.seite@orange.com>, 'Ted Lemon' <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "'STARK, BARBARA H'" <bs7652@att.com>, 'Alexandru Petrescu' <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
> Subject: Follow up with BBF proposal
> 
> Hi everybody
>  
> I am recommending that Xue Li could help to put down the slide for the problem statement from BBF.
>  
> And MIP/NEMO proponents (Pierrick, Alex, Sri) and Xue Li could kindly to meet together during IETF meeting
> to discuss by adding s thelide about how today solutions meet the requirement or there are some gap still, and whether that problem should be solvable in IETF.
>  
> Chairs will talk with AD whether MIF or somewhere else will consider to discuss those issues during the f2f session.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> -Hui
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif