Re: [mif] mif Digest, Vol 5, Issue 18

Min Hui <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com> Tue, 17 March 2009 09:24 UTC

Return-Path: <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com>
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 6CCC73A67F7 for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:24:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 bNKz-o5F5uWF for <mif@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723033A67DD for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so3695464wfd.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aOpfo5enwGpvjiv+9eJfd1tu8QXpAQPMgAPBrzeC/v4=; b=WQW4esham/DMpOuywJI54u7b09s4NFqo0nzoIR6ngefZ8G9IQTFCRiPkmSIngxCJJz xdWzg7BDVOc/snhe86GqNDH1U9+x6E14r88rMAA0PBX8m/eFNUTdTOW5uJcRT21Ufk0c q3z5q5ih4mvklvxiFr1LJzt3FgrMtxAf7KaXk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=V1GF72+qzJeF5CdbHbCBC+2M3/D2PQ0jiU1auMyCZW8gokgoWKZogtS9/5ukPtM5PW gV9UvI6D7xioJYaAoJxuwGTid7jP6O+fttXjenGdo2KDrVFULF4+icu0EqzdcXt/ILv/ JZPnwyRqSIwubvLd5Dtp+R/KnH95WZgpPjhoU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.192.1 with SMTP id p1mr2675394wff.295.1237281925451; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <e360024e0903162241n245af6e0v5877d86cedc35ef3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.25.1237230002.1293.mif@ietf.org> <e360024e0903162241n245af6e0v5877d86cedc35ef3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:25:25 +0800
Message-ID: <5dca10d30903170225s332bc12bkae4da4281d5aaf30@mail.gmail.com>
From: Min Hui <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com>
To: ma yc <ycma610103@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] mif Digest, Vol 5, Issue 18
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: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:24:43 -0000

Hi, Yuanchen

For the first question, there are two situations.

1. the host sends data using one of its interfaces, and the correspond
node reply to the address of this interface. it's has no problem, the
host will receive the reply by the same interface.
2. the network side initiate the communication, the host name will be
used in the DNS query to get a list of addresses, which one should be
choosed depends on the network side policy.

For the second question, the element would be the gateway which in
charge of all the interfaces, e.g. PDN GW in 3GPP architecture, LMA in
PMIP domain.

Thanks for your comments.

- Hui Min

2009/3/17 ma yc <ycma610103@gmail.com>:
> Hi, Min Hui,
>
> I an also confused on the requirement 5.
>
> As for the the flow directed to the multiple
> interface node, why does the network side need
> to decide which interface to forward the data?
>
> The dst address of the packet should be used for routing.
> The network just forwards the data according to the routing table.
> I do not see the needs for interface selection to route the flow.
>
> Also if you have the use case, i have the same concern
> as macelo, which elememt will be in chcarge of
> distributing the traffic?
>
> Thank you.
> Regards
> Yuanchen
>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:13:29 +0100
>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
>> Subject: Re: [mif] about draft-hui-ip-multiple-connections-ps-02
>> To: Min Hui <huimin.cmcc@gmail.com>
>> Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>
>> Message-ID: <49BE88B9.6010306@it.uc3m.es>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>
>> >  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...
>> > Regards, marcelo
>> >
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>