Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal

["Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]>]

(We have started the technical discussion, but I do want to respond to
this)


Hi Hui,

> Current MIF charter prevent MIF from working on flow switch which is
>mostly mobile ip/dmm based solution, but it doesn't disallow MIF to work
>on flow split and per packet delivery.


You are saying the charter disallows splitting of flows across two access
networks, but it allows splitting of a single flow ? What is the logic
here ?  So, this requirement does not match the prior work because the
flow policy is different ? That's the only reason why we should look at
this as a different problem from the work that was done in the past ?

Per-packet load balancing is probably not explicitly stated as transport
group was never in favor of splitting a single flow across two access
links with different transmission properties (latency, packet loss and
jitter) as that will result in peers requiring to deal with
re-odering/buffering issues.  General recommendation was not to split a
single flow, and so the MIP WG always kept the flow definition at the
granularity of a flow-level and not at a packet level. But, in any case
that's just a policy that is exchanged between two peers.


Regards
Sri



On 11/10/14 6:34 PM, "Hui Deng" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>
>Current MIF charter prevent MIF from working on flow switch which is
>mostly mobile ip/dmm based solution,
>but it doesn't disallow MIF to work on flow split and per packet
>delivery. This is the key point that PS should explain the clearly.
>
>-Hui
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 4:23 PM
>To: Ted Lemon
>Cc: STARK, BARBARA H; Hui Deng; [e-mail]; Brian Haberman; Jouni
>Korhonen; [e-mail]; Dapeng Liu
>Subject: Re: Follow up with BBF proposal
>
>Hi Ted,
>
>Having a discussion in MIF WG sounds reasonable to me.
>
>Regarding homenet relation, I'm not sure it belongs to that WG either.
>The focus of the homenet is on ingress networks and for realizing
>simplified configurations and that has no relation to access selection on
>egress paths. FWIW, this work is very much related to what the MIP
>working group have been doing for many years. Sure, the device in case of
>BBF is a fixed device, but the fundamental requirements are about access
>selection, flow mobility and policy exchange. The flow mobility / MCOA
>work in MIP working groups have done significant amount of work in this
>area and the expertise is in that group.
>
>If the reason for steering this work away from DMM is due the belief that
>we will apply only MIP-based solution, I'd say the group will certainly
>do that, but the WG may also agree to additional solution/protocol
>mechanisms. Also, IETF is in no position to pick one protocol/solution
>for this requirement. It is probably reasonable for IETF to identify a
>set of solutions and present analysis on each of the solutions and that
>can be the basis for the BBF to review and pick one or more solutions.
>But, either way I believe the expertise around this topic is in DMM WG
>and not in homenet or in MIF WG's.
>
>Regards
>Sri