Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal
"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Tue, 11 November 2014 02:22 UTC
Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677331AD44E for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:22:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j_p56FcSbYzN for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:22:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9C141AD44A for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:22:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3057; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415672560; x=1416882160; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=7/r3cWEjvAAVesDa2GAKoVlyu1lU33v2yXyjwhM8CbY=; b=B2l4ceJTNOEhEyp7ywlHbxpT994BmtQ6N1tiVHa3AZi/ZAOpvchQeDOi oeHzuhk/4WpaVYcoPqa2HeOzqWwOOBNPq+nDVvSnjGiUIyg/giOb2TCB5 hIXXiFXuP95qzymEXgc4yt7nu2SV6xegHWdSzMX1IQeM10S2VNTaUZxy+ Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAB1yYVStJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABSCoMOgS0E008CgRwWAQEBAQF9hAMBAQQ6MQcHEAIBCBgeEDIlAgQOBRuIJsx/AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARmQOVwHhEsFkjGLdJZgg3psgUiBAwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,357,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="95354001"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2014 02:22:40 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sAB2MdvF021868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 02:22:39 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.32]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:22:39 -0600
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Thread-Topic: Follow up with BBF proposal
Thread-Index: AQHP/VZdDGqgD4+1QES0VCAdxLmWww==
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 02:22:39 +0000
Message-ID: <D086AE73.178045%sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B449037ECA@nkgeml504-mbx.china.huawei.com> <D0765101.175805%sgundave@cisco.com> <005401cff509$3719eb30$a54dc190$@com> <D0869CBD.177FDF%sgundave@cisco.com> <642BADAF-0E49-4B1E-A2C2-374B1A8FA174@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <642BADAF-0E49-4B1E-A2C2-374B1A8FA174@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.5.141003
x-originating-ip: [10.21.69.71]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4F2B8BB6013E1A4BA8182B937D078E55@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/_QSo6HwhELgGQVftP8gO6HjdP78
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 02:22:42 -0000
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 On 11/10/14 5:59 PM, "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote: >On Nov 10, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) ><sgundave@cisco.com> wrote: >> 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. > >It's not at all clear that the way the problem is currently framed is >even correct. I am skeptical that this is a flow splitting/flow >switching problem. I agree that if it is, it doesn't belong in MIF. >But I think it's worthwhile to discuss in MIF, and I think it's also >germane to what homenet is doing. If this does actually require flow >splitting and/or switching, that's going to have some pretty nasty >implications on the home network, so it would be nice to see if there's a >better way to approach the problem. >
- [mif] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband Foru… Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband … Michael Richardson
- [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New_Lia… Xueli
- [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New_Lia… pierrick.seite
- Re: [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New… Hui Deng
- [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_[DMM]_RE:_[homenet]_Fw… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” … Alexandru Petrescu
- [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New_Lia… Xueli
- [mif] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_[DMM]_RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:… Xueli
- Re: [mif] “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” … Xueli
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… pierrick.seite
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Xueli
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” … Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Xueli
- Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison St… Xueli
- [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New… Alper Yegin
- Re: [mif] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New… Xueli
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alper Yegin
- [mif] 答复: Follow up with BBF proposal Xueli
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alper Yegin
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alper Yegin
- [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Michael Richardson
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Erik Kline
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Hui Deng
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Michael Richardson
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Ted Lemon
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal pierrick.seite
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem pierrick.seite
- Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem Behcet Sarikaya