Re: [Mip6] Re: [Mipshop] Minutes of Multiple Link Flows BAR BOF

[Nicolas Montavont <[e-mail]>]

Erik Nordmark wrote:

>I didn't make it to the bar on Monday due to jetlag.
>
>One observation I have on the desire to send different flows over
>different paths/CoAs.
>
>Looking at possible multihoming solutions (take draft-nordmark-multi6-noid
>as an example one what a solution might look like) the result
>is that the stack would have a mapping from an ID (used by transport protocols)
>to a set of locators for the peer.
>
>This type of example shows that it might be useful to express sending
>different flows over different paths/locators even if mobility isn't used.
>
>Thus I don't think such a scheme, if we are going to define one,
>should be tied to mobility specific signalling.
>
I totally agree with you that if we specify a MIPv6-tied solution for 
"general" multihoming, we may encounter difficulties with non-MNs.
But I think that some points are to be clarified in MIPv6 when the MN is 
multihomed. That is what we are trying to show in 
draft-montavont-pb-statement.

And I'd like to point out another aspect of multihoming, more linked to 
our draft on filtering (draft-montavont-mip6-ha-filtering). Assume that 
you have two interfaces, a WLAN interface and a GPRS interface and you 
currently use the WLAN interface through a reverse tunnel with your home 
agent. Assume that you receive several flows on your pda. One of them is 
a video streaming.

Then you leave the hot spot zone and want to switch your flows on GPRS 
interface. To do so, you send a BU to your HA. In this case, it can be 
very useful to add some filters on what flows you want to be redirected 
and what flows you don't want on your GPRS interface. It seems to me 
that to use the BU in that case is a good solution, because you only 
need to send one message. This does not forbidd the use of other 
mechanisms to manage multihoming in different situations.

Maybe the conclusion of that can be that different problems may lead to 
different solutions. A clear problem statement, from each WG may 
definitly help to clarify the situation.

Nicolas

>
>  Erik
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mip6 mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
>  
>



_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop