Re: [Mip4] Questions on draft-gundavelli-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-00

[Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Behcet,

Yes, that is the registry for ATT that should have been referenced.

Sri

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:

> Hi Hui,
>   Access technology type values are registered at IANA website at:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters
> Sri can answer the other questions you have.
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hui Deng <[e-mail]>
> To: Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 4:52:41 AM
> Subject: [Mip4] Questions on draft-gundavelli-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-00
>
>
> Hi, Sri,
>
> I have several questions regarding to your draft.
>
> 1) will you use the same AE between HA and MN on different interfaces?
> 2) how do you generate a label for each interface?
> 3) Where does the access Technology Type Registry is defined?
> 4) why don't allow mobile node use multiple interface when one of it stay at home?
>
> thanks
>
> -Hui
>
>
> 2009/1/20 Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>
>
> Hi George,
>
> Sorry for the late reply. Please see inline.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, George Tsirtsis wrote:
>
>
> Hi Sri,
>
> I just had a look at the draft.
> Since I was not in the last IETF meeting could you summarize what the
> plan is with this draft? Is this something the WG considers taking up?
>
>
> I hope so. That's the plan and there is interest. We need this for
> our mobile router deployments.
>
>
>
>
> If yes, I think it would be useful to spell out what the scope of this
> work is in comparison to the equivalent work in the MEXT (i.e., MCoA
> and Flow Movement). I did this early on for DSMIPv4 and it helped
> things significantly.
>
>
> Ok. The problem statement between MCOA4 and MCOA6 is similar. The
> ability for the mobile to setup multiple tunnels to the home agent
> through different interfaces, is largely same. The presence of foreign
> agent/types of registrations, NAT presence introduces some differences
> and issues.
>
>
>
>
> BTW, I am not sure I like the whole notion of 'Interface bandwidth".
> This is something notoriously difficult to set right and make sense
> of, especially on wireless links. Instead the rough link priority
> adopted in MIPv6-MCoA is easier to deal with and should satisfy your
> needs, without turning this into a QoS protocol...which would be a
> nightmare..
>
>
>
> The draft is exposing the information about the interface through which
> a mobile node is attached and marks the binding associated with this
> attach. The interface type (WiMAX, WiFI, LTE ..etc) will definetly provide
> a sufficient hint for the home agent. In some radio environments, if
> the link bandwidth is predictable, it can certainly expose the same to
> the home agent. I agree with you that its not always predictable, hence
> it is optional, making it useful only when present. The exposed parameters
> are sufficient for the tunnel peers to build efficient traffic policies
> and leverage the links in a much more efficient manner.
>
> Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
> George
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Please comment on this work item. We presented this
> at Minneapolis.
>
>
> Sri
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon,  8 Dec 2008 00:51:42 -0800 (PST)
> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: New Version Notification for
>   draft-gundavelli-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-00
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-gundavelli-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-00.txt
> has been successfuly submitted by Sri Gundavelli and posted to the IETF
> repository.
>
> Filename:        draft-gundavelli-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support
> Revision:        00
> Title:           Multiple Tunnel Support for Mobile IPv4
> Creation_date:   2008-12-08
> WG ID:           Independent Submission
> Number_of_pages: 17
>
> Abstract:
> This document defines extensions to Mobile IPv4 protocol for allowing
> a mobile node or a mobile router with multiple interfaces to register
> a care-of address for each of the available interfaces and to
> simultaneously establish multiple Mobile IP tunnels to the home
> agent, each through a different interface path.  This capability is
> required for enabling a mobile node to utilize all the available
> wireless access links and build an higher aggregated data pipe to the
> home agent by setting the home address reachability over all of those
> tunnel paths.
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat.
>
>
> --
> Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
>  Web interface: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
>   Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
> Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/
>
>
> --
> Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
>   Web interface: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
>    Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
> Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/
>
>
>

--
Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
    Web interface: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/