Re: [netext] netext Digest, Vol 7, Issue 2
Xiaoyan Jiang <jxyswallow@gmail.com> Mon, 14 December 2009 09:22 UTC
Return-Path: <jxyswallow@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E92C3A69D0 for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:22:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.069, BAYES_05=-1.11, CN_BODY_35=0.339, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WXIh-aMMaR2X for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pw0-f50.google.com (mail-pw0-f50.google.com [209.85.160.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8913E3A69CB for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pwi20 with SMTP id 20so1992012pwi.29 for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:22:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=tkkqhxf7E4SO9o+vMlUvkpIrmhuc7Mt0ydXu+oTYZ7U=; b=x4WS8VJZBa5UW6DM2p5tR/M1wUbuSnx0EmExUnZ4UHjmxq1Mybn5As6/xHB6zW6O53 i0Q1jQzLbfnDEH+e4SLBWzROcqryuKy5iMzrQ+6D53NI1YuM1H0KgWbVFyPyXYqErnrQ sG/ZdkU2LZIjC2lvRx6erXh/xTwnVzFjgWHMQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=A/lQ7ViOEIDFM9mTg4Ls9Trnnl8cNALwYKdcNRnnN7ZD2dEbVaYA2pgdb2TjnazHMj Ixx2DwJtoqQg8VmnAbp9w8MqJKluP02Mo7VJUioST/1m5wlAy6Wp+waob37tsxyLw1Kj mhha3cpDBCvOnY9+nD87zaWcnE6Gx4u0Xytq4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.138.7 with SMTP id q7mr2932405wfn.314.1260782530050; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:22:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.8.1260648002.310.netext@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.8.1260648002.310.netext@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:22:10 +0800
Message-ID: <8b78dd8b0912140122m5b6f7dbfue939c593ca5ec194@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xiaoyan Jiang <jxyswallow@gmail.com>
To: netext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd5f6fad7c3c1047aacceca"
Subject: Re: [netext] netext Digest, Vol 7, Issue 2
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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/listinfo/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, 14 Dec 2009 09:22:47 -0000
About PMIP6 extensions for inter-access, I don't understand soution 2 well. How does MN provide the handover information to MAG or other entity? What's the relationship between soution 2 and soution 3? 2009/12/13 <netext-request@ietf.org> > If you have received this digest without all the individual message > attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list > subscription. To do so, go to > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > > Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get > MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option > globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. > > > > Send netext mailing list submissions to > netext@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > netext-request@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > netext-owner@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of netext digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. IETF76 Meeting minutes (Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com) > > > ---------- 已转发邮件 ---------- > From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com> > To: <netext@ietf.org> > Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:56:30 +0100 > Subject: [netext] IETF76 Meeting minutes > > Network-Based Mobility Extensions (netext) WG Minutes > IETF 76 > > WEDNESDAY, November 11, 2009, 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I > > Chairs: Basavaraj Patil (basavaraj.patil@nokia.com) > Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli@starentnetworks.com) > > Credit for these minutes to: Antti Makela(antti dot makela at tkk dot fi> > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > 1. Agenda bashing, Blueseheets, Note takers, Jabber scribes 5 Mins > Change in agenda: Flow Mobility and Inter-technology handovers moved > to start due to conflicting schedule. > > 2. PMIP6 extensions for inter-access, presenters Rajeev Koodli and > Jari Arkko > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/netext-12.ppt > and http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/netext-6.pdf > > Discussion on choices at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/current/msg00881.html and > slide 2 of JA's presentation > > JA: Recharter or new WG (Netext2?) > > Jonne Soininen/NSN: Everything is true, but Solution #1 is not needed > since IP does not notice anything, constrant to 2G/3G handover in 3GPP > JA: With different technologies where MTU changes IP level needs to be > aware > JS: Virtual links depend on operating systems, different on Symbian > and FreeBSD > JA: We shouldn't provide implementation advice, only conceptual > JS: Can it be done in high-level fashion? > Sri: We don't have triggering capability from UE -> MAG. How about > moving only partial set of flows to a new interface? What is the > evolution path? > JA: Is triggering at L2 or L3? Discussion so far indicated that we > don't want L3 solution, possible PMIP extensions would transfer > triggers around the nextwork but they'd still be L2 triggers. With L3 > triggers you can't have inter-access handovers and PMIP. > Sri: Can build everything on the network site, if triggering is > out-of-band? > RK: Regardless of choice with MAG interface signaling needed between > LMA <-> MAG to allow for subset of flows being transferred > > Juan-Carlos Zunlga: MAG <-> MN, Solution recommendations should be > very specific Carlos J. Bernardos: I support writing BCP document > Marcello: I think conclusions accurate. > > Vote: Reasonable way forward, yes/no: ~ 17 yes, none no. > > JA: Expecting text on the discussion as a basis for a minor recharter > Sri: Can triggers come from link-layer and PMIP support it on network side? > JA: Should be ok > Marcelo: There is no standard-track document on this. > > 3. Runtime LMA Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6, Jouni > Korhonen http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/netext-8.ppt > I-D: draft-ietf-netext-redirect-00 > > About 5 people have read draft > No comments forthcoming > > RK: What is the motivation for mid-session LMA assignment? > JK: Currently assignment only applies to initial assignment, input > needed for motivation - do people find this useful? Applies to > handover cases where you might cross a boundary where administrator > has decided to switch LMAs. Lots of assumptions in such cases (sharing > of mobility sessions etc) > RK: If session is anchored at specific LMA, is there session continuity. > JK: Have you read draft? > RK: No > JK: Open question at the moment, there is introduction to a discussion > in the draft > RK: I don't think this should be done at all. Why both soft and hard > support needed? Simpler approach needed, now three-level complexity. > JK: So, take handover exchange away, only apply assignment on initial > PBU/PBA? > RK: Yes > > Hidetoshi Yokota: Mid-session redirection, where LMA sends back > different LMA, session would break. > BP: When you a redirected to new MAG, the session should go to the > anchored LMA > HY: It's just an example > BP: Bad example. > > Kent Leung: Why are we doing LMA reassignment during handover? I don't > see justification. Question: What is the option in PBU? > JK: If we apply only in initial, we don't use option. Draft doesn't > comment on options yet. > > 4. Bulk Re-registration for Proxy Mobile IPv6, Basavaraj Patil > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/netext-1.pdf > I-D: draft-premec-netlmm-bulk-re-registration-03 > > Marcos: Is this same as group ID? > BP: Not to my understanding > Marcos: I propose merging group ID with Charlie's draft > RK: Charlie's draft tries to combine multiple ID's concerining single > node > Marcos: So, there's a connection, in this case we are just doing it > for multiple nodes. Better to have all in single draft. > BP: Charlie not here, but we can have different sets of IDs depending > on policy. We can continue this on list. > Qin Wu: How do you define flag B, it has two purposes, what if both > purposes happen at same time. > BP: We'll provide a clarification in future revision. > > Localized routing - PS and solutions discussion > > 5. PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/netext-2.ppt > draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-01.txt > BJ: Few people have read the document, please send comments, also on > the roaming model. > Glen Zoren(?): I was under impression that PMIP domain was set of > nodes which could set up SA's between each other - so you can have > dynamic domains. > Carlos: That's not incorrect as such, but can't make that assumption. > GZ: I didn't mean all PMIP entities in the world. > > 6. draft-oulai-netext-opt-local-routing-01.txt, Suresh Krishnan > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/netext-9.ppt > > > Kent Leung: Is the scope limited to some cases only > SK: Yes. > BP: What do you mean by optimized handover? > SK: Not easy problem but if there's RO between MAGs and MN switches > MAGs, we can use that > KL: Is it possible to map the problem spaces of different solutions to > different drafts for comparison? > BP: Yes, at least we can talk now about them allow > Marcos: What does it mean "inter-MAG tunnel may be preconfigured" > SK: If some MAGs are close to one another, who can expect handovers > between them, they can prepare for RO > > 7. draft-koodli-netext-local-forwarding, Rajeev Koodli > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/netext-11.ppt > > ?: What triggers the transaction? > RK: Trigger is still open. > [Several people did not state names] > ?2: Two LMA's are not talking to each other, how's the authentication? > RK: If the LMAs trust each other, even if not talking, authentication is > ok. > Trust doesn't mean you have to talk. You don't want LMA <-> LMA signaling. > What's is defined is MAG <-> MAG, with some LMA interaction. What's > happening is dynamic delegation with fine granularity. > BP: Cutting off discussion > > 8. draft-wu-netext-local-ro Qin Wu > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/netext-3.ppt > > Mohana Jeyatharan: LMA needs to know where prefix is from > QW: Ok, we'll address this in next revision > > 9. draft-loureiro-netext-pmipv6-ro-01.txt > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/slides/netext-4.ppt > > BP: That concludes discussion on localized routing > > 10. New Proposals: > > Multihoming extensions for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Carlos J. Bernardos I-D: > draft-bernardos-mif-pmip-01.txt 5 mins > > Hui Deng: Clarifications on weak/strong host models? > BP: Let's take this on mailing list > > Service Flow Identifier in Proxy Mobile IPv6 > Hui Deng - draft-hui-netext-service-flow-identifier-01.txt 5 Mins > > HD: WG draft? > BP: We need to do the rechartering process, then we can consider > taking this on. > > Bulk PBU using Bitmaps > Mohana J. - draft-jeyatharan-netext-pmip-bulkpbu-bitmap-00 5 Mins > > MJ: Comments on the way forward? > BP: We have adopted group ID approaches as WG items, for these we need > to do more discussions on mailing lists. > > Virtual interface for supporting multihoming and inter technology > handover Tranh M. Trung - draft-trung-netext-virtual-interface-01 5 > Mins > > Sri: Can you statement the differences between this and other related > document(s)? > TMT: I try to limit the modifications to mobile node. > Sri: If it's a simple change, does this require a new document? Better > work with existing ones > BP: Moving on > > ITHO support in MN for PMIP6 > Hidetoshi Y./Sri G. draft-yokota-netlmm-pmipv6-mn-itho-support-02.txt > > Reflector Extension for Route Optimization Agent Xiansong Cui > draft-cui-netext-route-optimization-agent-ext-01.txt 5 Mins > > CJB: Why LMA, not MAG doing this? Some work done for RO in Nemo, > please take a look > BP: Need to shut down and conclude > > BP: Meeting adjourned, rest of the presentations not given due to lack > of time. > > Differentiated Services Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Behcet S./Frank > Xia - draft-xia-netext-qos-00.txt > > Gateway Initiated Dual-Stack Lite Deployment Sri G. > draft-gundavelli-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-00 > > PMIPv6 and Network Mobility Problem Statement Carlos CJ. > draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps-00 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > >
- Re: [netext] netext Digest, Vol 7, Issue 2 Xiaoyan Jiang