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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
- Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections… Min Hui
- [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections… marcelo bagnulo braun
- [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-… liuyin
- Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections… Min Hui
- Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections… Min Hui
- Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections… Min Hui
- Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections… Min Hui