[netext] WG poll about including flow identification information in draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Mon, 28 July 2014 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF8E1A0292 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 07:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PZm6nHTZuts0 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 07:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19B2E1B2830 for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 07:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21154D23112; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:40:18 +0200 (CEST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [163.117.139.72] (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp01.uc3m.es) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16107D2307D; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:40:18 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1406558418.4203.46.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:40:18 +0200
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5-2+b3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.5.0.1018-20844.007
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/-5AQGZMnd-sZnK-OmlhNnHkVdCQ
Cc: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
Subject: [netext] WG poll about including flow identification information in draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:40:22 -0000

Hi,

As discussed in Toronto, I'd like to poll the WG about one issue posted
by Hidetoshi. He suggested to add back in the signaling flow
identification information, so not only prefix information is exchanged
(for routing purposes due to flow mobility).

He pointed that the actual use cases would require more than just
routing. For example, the new MAG might need to know which flow(s)
is/are coming within that prefix to link it/them to proper QoS path(s)
and optionally to inform the MN about it.

My proposal is to also support the inclusion in the signaling  flow
identification options (ala RFC 6089). The consensus of the room was to
do it. If you have any comment, especially is you don't agree, please
say so by Thursday. I'd like to submit a new revision of the draft,
ready for WGLC by the end of this week/beginning of next one.

Thanks,

Carlos