Re: [mif] New draft: IRON Applicability for Multiple Interface Nodes

Hi Hui,

Thanks for your reply, and please see below for
follow-up: 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hui Deng [mailto:denghui@chinamobile.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:59 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: mif@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: New draft: IRON Applicability for Multiple 
> Interface Nodes
> 
> Hello Fred,
> 
> Thanks for writing MIF iron document, 
> Comments from MIF:
> 1) MIF is not targeting a new internetworking and routing 
> architecture, MIF
> is proposed to solve today existing industry's architecture 
> such as 3GPP,
> BBF, WIFI deployment or Ethernet/PON office network.

IRON is concerned with solving problems for the existing
industry's architecture. It does not replace any of the
existing architecture, but rather augments the existing
architecture.

> For new architecture
> proposal, it would better to be discussed in IRTF.

IRON is not a new architecture, but rather a ready-for-
deployment second edition of an architecture already
published through the IRTF RRG (see RFC6179). Hence,
IRON is now proposed as an IETF working document.

> 2) MIF is not going to solve one OS handling two interfaces 
> with the same
> conflict IP address and prefix. At this moment, it is talking 
> about how to
> select happy eyeball path with multiple interfaces.

The IRON soultion to happy eyeballs is to expose only
a single, stable IRON virtual interface to the
application and to dynamically ensure that the IRON
interface remains mapped to the best underlying ISP
interface(s) based on current ISP connectivity.

> Comments from research direction:
> 1) Thinking about the possibility how to deploy VSP 
> integrated with the
> existing architecture like 3GPP, BBF, WIFI. It will take a 
> revolutionary way
> other than incremental deployment since it will change both host and
> network,

No; no changes to the current network deployment.
IRON only requires a few new routers be deployed
in the network in incremental fashion. (Modification
of existing routers is also possible.)

> host is especially harder in today's mobile industry 
> by supporting IRON interface.

The MIF node would require a new IRON virtual interface,
yes. The IRON interface is really the same as for GRE,
but also asks for dynamic mapping of the IRON interface
to ISP interface(s) so that applications see a constant
and stable interface with constant and stable IP config.

> 2) As far as I learned, IETF is more focusing on the problem with the
> limited scope other than a general solution which can solve 
> everything like
> 1st paragraph of in section of Introduction.

OK, but if the limited scope solution also happens to
generalize, then so much the better - right?

> Excuse me for not reading in detail about your 4 drafts.

The progression in understanding should be to first
become familiar with the IRON virtual interface in
the current MIF draft. Then, read IRON followed by
SEAL followed by VET followed by AERO - while taking
a break between documents as necessary without risk
of losing context. So, the documents are inter-
dependent in a seperable and healthy way without
being co-dependent in a pathological way.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com 

> Thanks again
> 
> -Hui
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:07 AM
> > To: Hui Deng
> > Cc: mif@ietf.org
> > Subject: FW: New draft: IRON Applicability for Multiple 
> Interface Nodes
> > 
> > Hello Hui,
> > 
> > The draft I announced on Jan 4th (below) was motivated
> > by our discussions back in December:
> > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg01597.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg01599.html
> > 
> > I would appreciate it if you could take the time to
> > review the draft and post comments.
> > 
> > Thanks - Fred
> > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mif-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mif-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of
> > Templin, Fred L
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:52 AM
> > To: mif@ietf.org
> > Subject: [mif] New draft: IRON Applicability for Multiple 
> Interface Nodes
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I have submitted a new draft on "IRON Applicability for
> > Multiple Interface Nodes" (see below). Please review and
> > send comments.
> > 
> > Fred
> > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org]
> > On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:18 AM
> > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> > Subject: I-D Action: draft-templin-mif-ironapp-00.txt
> > 
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > 
> > 	Title           : IRON Applicability for Multiple 
> Interface Nodes
> > 	Author(s)       : Fred L. Templin
> > 	Filename        : draft-templin-mif-ironapp-00.txt
> > 	Pages           : 7
> > 	Date            : 2012-01-04
> > 
> >    The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) is a new 
> internetworking
> >    and routing architecture that addresses important issues 
> including
> >    routing scaling, network renumbering, mobility management, mobile
> >    networks, multihoming, traffic engineering, NAT traversal and
> >    security.  In this document, we focus on IRON's applicability for
> >    multiple interface (mif) nodes.
> > 
> > 
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-mif-ironapp-00.txt
> > 
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > 
> > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-mif-ironapp-00.txt
> > _______________________________________________
> > mif mailing list
> > mif@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
> 
> 
> 