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

"Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Sat, 10 December 2011 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=31812d226=schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD5A21F8BB8 for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 08:33:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id irykcSMlMfTK for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 08:33:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de (mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.6.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA23F21F8B10 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 08:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.30.74]) by mail6.is.haw-hamburg.de with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 10 Dec 2011 17:33:05 +0100
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 652CA102C0C4; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:33:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 04518-10; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:33:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [172.17.192.67] (75-148-178-225-Houston.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [75.148.178.225]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD4B7102C0CC; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 17:33:03 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4EE389CB.40704@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:33:15 -0600
From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: seil jeon <sijeon79@gmail.com>
References: <CAC8QAcc9NhSKO5Fz9C9JcVsku+OSXcBWe_PgjqoySMiA3doJ_w@mail.gmail.com> <20111209.093148.123963742.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <4EE1ABC3.4010208@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <20111209.184234.67901321.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <4EE24F17.9050809@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> <CALhCTOHDrr9S6GGEWYiECgNp83UeutMkC2BUZhvBOz6VdXGLhA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALhCTOHDrr9S6GGEWYiECgNp83UeutMkC2BUZhvBOz6VdXGLhA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at informatik.haw-hamburg.de
Cc: multimob@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multimob] WG adoption call on draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt
X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast Mobility <multimob.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob>
List-Post: <mailto:multimob@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:33:08 -0000

Hi Seil,

On 10.12.2011 02:15, seil jeon wrote:


> But when the MAG is connected with several LMAs including PIM-SM, MRIB
> SHOULD get information from PMIP routing table but "MAG's RIB doesn't
> reflect PMIP routing" (Thomas and Hitoshi agreed it).
>

the "problem" that causes these repeated errors in reasoning here on the 
list is the following (quoting Sri):


   1. PMIP routing is not ordinary routing, but policy-based.
      This means, it is not based on the destination address, but
      on policy filters, in this case *source* addresses.

   2. The consequence is: You cannot write PMIP routing rules in a 
regular routing table.

   3. Because you cannot write PMIP routing in *one* normal RIB, you 
also cannot built a (PIM-SM) MRIB from it.
      (And this is the reality-check for Hitoshi: he will see that he 
cannot write an MRIB in this case ...).


In general, there is no big deal about this. The fuzz is only that 
draft-asaeda-multimob-pmip6-extension-07 is built upon an error from 
misunderstanding PMIP routing ...


Your problem of draft 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zuniga-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-01.txt is a 
different one. You need to describe deployment of direct routing (e.g, 
PIM) at a MAG that runs PMIP routing (including tunnel interfaces) and 
normal routing in the access network (the non-PMIP case). You should 
explain this in your draft so well that readers can understand and 
successfully deploy. In the current version you just say "turn on PIM" 
... and that's not all, I guess.

Best,

Thomas

> 2011/12/10 Thomas C. Schmidt <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de
> <mailto:schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>>
>
>     Hitoshi,
>
>
>     On 09.12.2011 03:42, Hitoshi Asaeda wrote:
>
>             Then Sri stepped in and explained the same thing again: The MAG
>             performs policy-based routing according to policy filters, not
>             according to a regular RIB.
>
>
>         Then we should ask you one thing.
>         Why your source mobility draft introduces PIM-SM and Bidir PIM
>         on MAG?
>
>         In Section 5, your source mobility draft says;
>
>         "a multicast routing protocol such as PIM-SM [RFC4601] or BIDIR-PIM
>             [RFC5015] deployed at the MAGs."
>
>
>     We are considering the direct mcast routing deployment (not
>     following PMIP) - for receivers, this is the solution of Seil. There
>     is no problem with it.
>
>     Your proposal under debate is: Use PIM-SM on PMIP tunnels and in
>     concordance with PMIP routing, which is a completely different story.
>
>     However, to resolve the debate, there is a very simple reality-check:
>
>       For a basic PMIP scenario (MAG with 2 LMA uplinks and MNs
>     associated to either LMA), please just write down *one* PIM-SM
>     multicast routing table that accounts for PMIP routing and works for
>     all MNs attached to the MAG.
>
>       If you can do so correctly, you have proved that your approach is
>     feasible.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Thomas
>
>
>
>     --
>
>     Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
>     ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner
>     Tor 7 °
>     ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg,
>     Germany °
>     ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon:
>     +49-40-42875-8452 °
>     ° http://www.informatik.haw-__hamburg.de/~schmidt
>     <http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt>    Fax:
>     +49-40-42875-8409 °
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     multimob mailing list
>     multimob@ietf.org <mailto:multimob@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/multimob
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> multimob mailing list
> multimob@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob

-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °