Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband For um Work on ³Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks² (WT-348)"

["Hui Deng" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

There are two types of argumentation of the bandwidth, one is just adding bandwidth, the other could do policy based traffic steering if the congestion happened.
One traffic flow sometime consume less, other time more. It might need to be offloaded to another connection.

I am not representing the BBF here, Hope Xue Li can help to explain what BBF really wants here.

Best regards,

-Hui

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 5:51 PM
To: Hui Deng; 'Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)'; 'Xueli'; [e-mail]; 'Ted Lemon'; 'STARK, BARBARA H'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband For um Work on ³Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks² (WT-348)"

Hello Hui,

Please allow me to comment here.  The flow management concept used in Mobile IP protocol extensions would bind one flow per one IP address, or to one interface in some circumstances.  For example: do web browsing on wifi and a VoIP call on cellular.  This has clear advantages in terms of bandwidth utilization.  It may also be highly appreciated by inter-operator deals.

Is the BF considering same context?  Or is BF needing fine-grained
per-packet(?) load balancing between interfaces to brutely augment bandwidth independent of application kind?

A policy to specify per-packet load-balancing is not really a communication protocol, but rather an algorithm executed within one single computer.

On another hand, setting up simultaneously several IP tunnels between an end node and a server in the infrastructure, exchanging tunnel parameters such as multiple local and remote addresses, tunnel types, in a single Mobile IP Registration Request or Binding Update, is something that could be worked on to render servers and end nodes inter-operable. 
  It would go beyond the traditional Mobile IP concepts of flow management and multiple CoA.

Alex

Le 28/10/2014 16:10, Hui Deng a écrit :
> Hi Sri,
>
> Could you split one session into two different path?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Hui
>
> *From:*mif [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Sri
> Gundavelli (sgundave) *Sent:* Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:41 PM
> *To:* Xueli; [e-mail]; Ted Lemon; STARK, BARBARA H
> *Cc:* [e-mail] *Subject:* Re: [mif] [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New
> Liaison Statement, "Broadband For um Work on ³Hybrid Access for
> Broadband Networks² (WT-348)"
>
> *** Trimming the CC list to include only the MIF WG; Removed DMM and
>  homenet lists.
>
> HI Li,
>
> To you question on the Problem Statement that the MIP technologies
> have addressed, I'd say its the following.
>
> In general, all the Mobile IP class of  protocols have support for
> access-link bonding. The ability for the anchor and the access
> gateway (or the anchor and the mobile node) to establish multiple
> overlay tunnels paths over different access networks, and to
> negotiate Application-to-Access routing policy is present in those
> technologies.
>
> Let me know if you believe this does not meet the requirement.
>
> Flow-1
>
> |
>
> |Flow-2
>
> | |
>
> | |Flow-3              _----_
>
> | | |         CoA-1  _(      )_   Tunnel-1
>
> | | |    .---=======(   Wi-Fi  )========\ Flow-1
>
> | | |    |           (_      _)          \
>
> | | |    |             '----'             \
>
> | | | +=====+          _----_              \  +=====+    _----_
>
> | | '-|     | CoA-2  _(      )_ Tunnel-2    \ |     |  _(      )_ --
>
> | '---| MN  |---====(   LTE    )=========-----| HA  |-( Internet )--
>
> '-----|     |        (_      _)      Flow-3 / |     |  (_      _) --
>
> +=====+          '----'              /  +=====+    '----'
>
> | |             _----_             /
>
> HoA-1--' |    CoA-3  _(      )_ Tunnel-3 /
>
> .------====(   CDMA   )========/ Flow-2
>
> (_      _)
>
> '----'
>
> Regards
>
> Sri
>
> *From: *Xueli <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> *Date:
> *Monday, October 27, 2014 9:04 PM *To: *Sri Gundavelli
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Ted
> Lemon <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "STARK,
>  BARBARA H" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> *Cc: *HOMENET
> Working Group <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> *Subject: *RE: [DMM] RE:
> [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband For um Work on
> ³Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks² (WT-348)"
>
> Hello Sri
>
> Thanks for the comments.  Just some clarification for the cross
> email.
>
> A new version about the architecture is uploaded..
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lhwxz-hybrid-access-network-architecture-01.txt
>
>  There are some new  requirements about the hybrid access topic, such
> as bonding, traffic policy distribution etc.
>
> Do you mind to share more additional technologies about the existing
>  protocols solution for hybrid access.
>
> Which exact issues it is really solving, in order to evaluate if the
>  existing solutions properly solve this use case?
>
> Best Regards
>
> Li
>
>
> *From:*Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[e-mail]] *Sent:*
> Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 PM *To:* [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Xueli; Ted Lemon; STARK, BARBARA
> H *Cc:* HOMENET Working Group; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> *Subject:* Re: [DMM] RE: [homenet]
> Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband For um Work on ³Hybrid Access
> for Broadband Networks² (WT-348)"
>
> <We probably should not be cross posting the mail to three WG
> mailers, but I will respond to this one last email>
>
> Hi Li,
>
> While the term "hybrid-access" sounds fresh and new, but its
> important to understand that this is largely a use-case around mobile
> networks. Per my comments in the last HOMENET meeting, mobility
> working groups have defined solutions for this multi-access use-case.
> There are clearly mechanisms that allow network entities to negotiate
> flow policies and switch traffic on application basis. The access can
> be LTE, WLAN, SatRAN, Fixed line ..etc, but the negotiated policies
> allow the peers to agree on binding a flow to a given access.
> Wearing cisco vendor hat, we have deployed solutions for this
> use-case for the last decade. So, I agree with the BBF use-case and I
> think we should probably draft a BCP-type solution document,
> explaining BBF on the tools that are available for addressing this
> issue. If there are minor gaps, we should certainly propose
> extensions to the protocols.
>
> As pierrick, I'm also not in favor of defining a control protocol for
>  GRE as its not needed. GRE is a use-plane protocol and the semantics
>  that are present in the header are only designed to be used for
> adding meta-data related to the IP flows in that tunnel header. There
> are no semantics for defining a new signaling layer in a user-plane
> protocol. GRE was always used in conjunction with a signaling
> protocol and that signaling protocol is IPsec, MIP, PMIP ..and so on.
> However, you design that control protocol, it will exactly smell and
> feel like existing protocols. The aspect around subscriber identity,
> authorization, access policy, Traffic flow template definition …all
> of this has to be modeled and in the process we will end up
> reinventing every thing that we defined over the last many years, but
> it will have a new title, "GRE-CP".
>
> Regards
>
> Sri
>
> *From: *"[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> *Date: *Wednesday, October 22,
> 2014 3:05 AM *To: *Xueli <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> *Cc: *HOMENET Working Group
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> *Subject: *[DMM]
> =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New_Liaison_Statement,
> _"Broadband_For?= um Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks”
> (WT-348)"
>
> Hi Li,
>
> Architecture considerations and solution design are two different
> things, which should not be addressed in the same I-D. People may
> agree with the big picture depicture and architecture but not agree
> with going on extensions to the GRE protocol to address the issue.
> BTW, I think that going for extensions to GRE header to address the
> hybrid access use-case is not the right way. Actually, IETF solutions
> already exist (RFC  4908 ) and, moreover, there is ongoing effort in
> DMM to update RFC 4908 to meet hybrid access requirements.
>
> BR,
>
> Pierrick
>
> *De :*Xueli [mailto:[e-mail]] *Envoyé :* mercredi 22 octobre
> 2014 11:48 *À :* Ted Lemon; STARK, BARBARA H *Cc :* HOMENET Working
> Group; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> *Objet :* RE: [homenet]
> Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband Forum Work on “Hybrid Access
> for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)"
>
> Hello
>
> Thanks Barbara to send this liaison out.
>
> Hybrid Access network is that Residential gateway (RG, or CPE) is
> extended with more than two access lines
>
> (e.g. DSL + LTE) in order to provide higher bandwidth for the
> customers. The scenario and architecture are shown as follows
>
> cid:[e-mail]8CD480
>
> Right now, we have two individual drafts, one for architecture and
> requirements, and the other one is for an optional solution.
>
> The draft
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhwxz-hybrid-access-network-architecture-00
>  ; ) proposes the architecture and gap analysis.
>
> The solution draft proposes one option for the solutions,
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-heileyli-gre-notifications-00
>
> We did not combine them as one draft, because we believe there may be
>  other candidates, and we would like to have further discussions in
> the related groups and IETF.
>
> We used to present it in Homenet in Toronto.
>
> Now the authors have invited Orange to join this architecture work.
> We will send out the new version of these drafts soon.
>
> We are glad to invite the experts for comments.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Li Xue on the co-authors behalf
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: homenet [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ted
> Lemon
>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:05 AM
>
> To: STARK, BARBARA H
>
> Cc: HOMENET Working Group
>
> Subject: Re: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband Forum
> Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks”(WT-348)"
>
> On Oct 21, 2014, at 2:55 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>> FYI. I made sure they were aware of IETF mif and homenet activities
>> in this area. I intend to try to prevent having to track efforts
>> that try to do the same thing in two different ways. But some of
>> the BBF effort may be focused on what can be done around "bonding"
>> of multiple interfaces that are under the control of a single
>> service provider. I don't see this in mif or homenet.
>
> Thanks.   I couldn't really tell what was being proposed from the
> Liaison statement, so this information is helpful.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> homenet mailing list
>
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous
> avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
>
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> privileged information that may be protected by law;
>
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without
> authorisation.
>
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
> and delete this message and its attachments.
>
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
> been modified, changed or falsified.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ mif mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>