Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-02

marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Fri, 20 March 2009 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: mif@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F5D28C124 for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.415
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aZkjtk9nP3hL for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9C03A6893 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from marcelo-bagnulos-macbook-pro.local (164.pool85-53-152.dynamic.orange.es [85.53.152.164]) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CDB731A44; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:19:51 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <49C3B417.80907@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:19:51 +0100
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Min Hui <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com>
References: <49BD54AD.1080504@it.uc3m.es> <5dca10d30903160249k39f5d8c3ndcd78ad28b461b44@mail.gmail.com> <49BE88B9.6010306@it.uc3m.es> <5dca10d30903170231t6994eabbr397070506486c71c@mail.gmail.com> <49C20C88.7060700@it.uc3m.es> <5dca10d30903200147g3ac5bde0rd9b1990bce3e49ab@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5dca10d30903200147g3ac5bde0rd9b1990bce3e49ab@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-5.6.0.1016-16532.000
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-02
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:19:08 -0000

Min Hui escribió:
>
>> ....
>>     
>>>>>  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...
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> In technical perspective,  the element would be the gateway which in
>>> charge of all the interfaces, e.g. PDN GW in 3GPP architecture, LMA in
>>> PMIP domain; In deployment perspective, it's better when all
>>> interfaces connect to the same ISP, the negotiation is needed when
>>> multiple ISP are involved.
>>>
>>>       
>> but it is not the network who can decide the IP address to use to forward
>> packets....
>>
>> I mean, suppose that you have a node A in the internet that wants to send a
>> flow to a mif device.
>> Let's suppose that the MIF device has different IP addresses per interface
>> Now, the selection of the interface is perfromed by node A when it selects
>> the destiantion address it will send the flow to. I  fail to see how the
>> netwokr would be able to send packet to a different address (wihtout using
>> MIP, of course)
>>     
>
> I agree with you, if we don't consider MIP and PMIP, the requirement
> of network side policy is not essential.
>   

i understand that mobility related topics are out fo the scope of this 
effort, right?

Regards, marcelo
>   
>> What is your view on this?
>>
>> Regards, marcelo
>>     
>>>>> Regards, marcelo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mif mailing list
>>>>> mif@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>         
>>>       
>>     
>
>