Re: [multimob] WG adoption call on draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hitoshi,

Please see inline.

Regards,

Behcet

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Hitoshi Asaeda <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Behcet,
>
>>   There was consensus on the tunnel convergence solution draft in Taipei.
>>  This mail is to confirm the consensus.
>>

Yes, there was. Please check the minutes.

>>
>> This document can be found at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt
>>
>> This mail starts a WG adoption call on this draft.
>>
>> The intended status for this document is proposed standard.
>> If adopted, the draft will be named:
>>
>> draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-tunnel-convergence.
>>
>> Please your comments by December 15, 2011.
>
> I don't think there was any consensus about adoption of this draft at
> the last meeting.
>
> We've proposed the tunnel convergence problem solution draft;
> draft-asaeda-multimob-pmip6-extension-07
>
Your draft and draft-zuniga present totally different approaches. They
do not overlap with each other.

> Why you eliminate the discussions in the meeting and the chance to
> discuss in the mailing list?
>

Who said so? Your draft is still up for discussion. I already saw some
comments on it in the list. So you should be happy.

> Before explaining the thoughts about draft-zuniga draft, I'd make you
> understand the situation of our draft.
>
> 1. I think Thomas always misunderstands the point. MAG is a router and
>   has its own RIB. PIM can use its RIB and can copy it to its MRIB.
>   When we need to define dedicate multicast routes, we can configure
>   the ones. We do not need PMIPv6-based policy routing for RPF check.
>   After the last meeting I understand Thomas's misinterpretation
>   comes from this. I will clearly emntion it in the revised version.
>
> 2. My -06 draft defines GRE type M-Tunnel to define MAG's upstream IF
>   to distinguish the regular IPv6 tunnel. But according to the previous
>   discussion in the ML, we eliminate the way to distinguish unicast
>   and multicast tunnels to make the story simple in -07 draft.
>   But I recognized this elimination was not always correct, because
>   we cannot assume that a unocast route toward sources outside of
>   PMIPv6 domain defined in MAG's RIB always goes through the regular
>   IPv6 tunnel. Therefore GRE type M-Tunnel will be recalled from -06
>   to the revision -08.
>
> 3. One important discussion missing in -06 is the way to select a single
>   M-Tunnel when multiple M-Tunnels are configured for the same (S,G)
>   or (*,G). This can be addressed in the revised draft, too.
>

The above has nothing to do with draft-zuniga so we can not take it as
a technical comment. Sorry.

> For your question, I don't think
> draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt should be adopted now.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Hitoshi Asaeda
>