Re: [Mipshop] Section 4.3.1 of draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6

[Marco Liebsch <[e-mail]>]

  Julien,

Am 13.09.2010 19:50, schrieb Laganier, Julien:
> Marco Liebsch wrote:
>>    [...]
>>>>>>      virtual interface on top of physical radio interfaces or
>>>>> I suggest:
>>>>>
>>>>> "logical interface on top of physical radio interfaces [I-D. ietf-
>>>>>   netext-logical-interface-support] or"
>>>> I am not sure why we should have a reference to NetExt, as the
>>>> approach how to realize this is not NetExt specific. Examples are
>>>> given in the text.
>>> I do not propose a reference to netext, I propose a reference to a
>>> document that describes exactly what you need, i.e., a logical
>>> interface that hides multiple physical interfaces.
>> Now I am a bit lost.
> I don't know why but let's give it a try?
>
>> Why is the virtual interfase the only approach to solve this?
> Who said the virtual interface is the only approach to solve this?
When you write that 'this is what we need', it can be understood that way.


>   I've said in another note that to the extent that the IETF does not specify NETLMM extensions that require changes to the IP layer on a host, you have to hide the multiple physical interfaces under a logical interface. I thought we agree about this.
>
>> And why should we specify in this document how to solve it?
> We are not specifying how to solve it, we are giving an _informative_ reference that explains what is this logical interface that you cite as an example of how to solve the dual radio issue.
the document you refer to comprises text about solving certain things 
with a virtual interface. So, it's a solution, isn't it?
But I have no problem with adding this.


>> Examples are given, including the virtual interface approach, even if
>> they are vague.. Details about what's needed are in as requested, details
>> about how to solve it should not be in.
> I do not follow this dichotomy.
I don't know why, but let's give it a try ;-) ..

>   There are no details, there is an informative reference on what constitutes a logical interface.
ok

>> Also: What we need is the described behaviour of the MN, not internal
>> details about hiding or not hiding physical interfaces.
> Exactly what the netext document is supposed to be doing. Not describe an implementation, but the external behavior in terms of the network on one hand, and the IP layer on the host on the other hand.
ok

marco

> --julien