IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Poll: Regarding the flow-mobility WG I-D

<pierrick.seite@orange.com> Fri, 04 September 2015 07:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pierrick.seite@orange.com>
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 0745D1B2E74 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 3VAVH8HkzQyH for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias243.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABBE01B2AC5 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 00:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id EC0C62AC6A8; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:41:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.75]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A71EF15807F; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:41:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM22.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::8c90:f4e9:be28:2a1]) by OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:41:17 +0200
From: pierrick.seite@orange.com
To: Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Poll: Regarding the flow-mobility WG I-D
Thread-Index: AQHQ5o0PJcuobvcHfUCZL0r+39+Kj54r9aYg
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 07:41:17 +0000
Message-ID: <18644_1441352477_55E94B1D_18644_17359_1_81C77F07008CA24F9783A98CFD706F71160F6A86@OPEXCLILM22.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <CAA5F1T1d9TOHMBGB=9qLPWibnyoFB4GefGkoMYcWENoZ6GJdFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA5F1T1d9TOHMBGB=9qLPWibnyoFB4GefGkoMYcWENoZ6GJdFA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_81C77F07008CA24F9783A98CFD706F71160F6A86OPEXCLILM22corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.9.4.70317
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/2O-iSd2iFgR08Qb4AJq44Hjc8rM>
Cc: "netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Poll: Regarding the flow-mobility WG I-D
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 07:41:22 -0000

Hi,

There are mobile use-cases for using more than one interface and moving IP flows independently of each other. At the same time, network based mobility is still of interest for operators. So, I think we should standardize this extension.

My 2 cents.
Pierrick

De : netext [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Basavaraj Patil
Envoyé : jeudi 3 septembre 2015 23:11
À : netext@ietf.org
Cc : netext-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Objet : [netext] Poll: Regarding the flow-mobility WG I-D


Hello,

We would like to do a quick poll on the I-D: Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility <draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob>

Current status of this I-D: Expired (as of Aug 29th).

The flow mobility I-D proposed : "extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol that are

   required to support network based flow mobility over multiple

   physical interfaces"

Question to the WG:

How relevant is this work and this extension to the protocol at this phase of the PMIP6 protocols lifecycle?

Should we standardize this extension or simply drop it.

Standardize it [  ]
Drop it    [  ]

Your feedback is appreciated. Please respond by 9/11/15.

Rgds,
-Chairs


--
Basavaraj Patil

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email