IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] #3: Logical Interface: Use of the Virtual LLID

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 15 March 2011 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@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 596743A68AC for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.272
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.327, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 khiz8VYzBr9b for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799353A6BCA for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so106140fxm.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7fHa0INP7dqxrkl3mEBIg3Zu12vv0tSou/OgKDhcuio=; b=lBuxhr8BTx/MNjpySi8UugCEk/IZ7vMWxU5Ycx0qQyTZvgcEw6ACnYlejJqyEoDe+3 wYo//+PsD045HyeCQwHZu5ywe8kyqR7kazKtOfGluVCLef5i6t/qLvt2i35RUBTIgXIG LYNYeGJARR9A+chrKyH26iv4w1VxS3bXW9iqg=
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 :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=w9LYocb0gaQzqL81v3LWLT55A+UUXujkhgItsbfR+wXJTeZWFn+Ej3sWupyi2uiA+h CuAzr3YsmhiDwff67tw63g3j2W190j0P5xob5vEH+qRor2HUSzUFvFLzpZR1z4SGKQg9 egscGe4BqlAF94TE5Kyyupp3SmXB/l7xbP4nY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.78.201 with SMTP id m9mr3834595fak.20.1300152194131; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.78.135 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C9A3E63B.135B7%sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <066.d2b1a47b864e8340579c7215fdc00464@trac.tools.ietf.org> <C9A3E63B.135B7%sgundave@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:23:14 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim6CY-H49YhHcq1RdHp+MHLRfQaRKqpQFk5+-8F@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-logical-interface-support@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] #3: Logical Interface: Use of the Virtual LLID
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: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:21:53 -0000

Sri -

I don't understand how this resolves the issue we discussed last time.
If an underlying link layer does not let you use an arbitrary link
layer identifier, what is the link layer identifier exposed by the
logical interface to the IP layer?

--julien

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:
>> #3: Logical Interface: Use of the Virtual LLID
>
>
> There were quite a few discussion on this among the authors. Looking things
> are done WiMAX, CDMA and LTE. It appeared logical to allow both the use of a
> neutral link-layer identifier, or adopt one of the link-layer identifier
> from its sub-interfaces.  We may have to add some text around SEND
> considerations. This section can go through some updates. Few need to
> reflect few comments from Yokota-san and others ... Its not complete. It
> shows where we are heading.
>
>
>
> --
> 6.4.  Link-layer Identifier of a Logical Interface
>
>   The logical Interface may or may not use the link-layer identifier
>   from one of its sub-interfaces.  Following are the considerations.
>
>   o  In access architectures where it is possible to adopt a virtual
>      link-layer identfier and use it for layer-2 communications in any
>      of the access networks, a virtual identifier (VLL-Id) may be used.
>      The specifics on how that identifier is chosen is out side the
>      scope of this document.  This identifier may be used for all link-
>      layer communications.  This identifier may also be used for
>      generating IPv6 global or link-local addresses on that interface.
>
>   o  In access architectures, where the link-layer identifier is
>      associated with a specific access technology, it will not be
>      possible for the logical interface to adopt a virtual identifier
>      and it use it across different access networks.  In such networks,
>      the logical interface must adopt the identifier of the respective
>      sub-interface through which a packet is being transmitted.
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/3/11 9:16 AM, "netext issue tracker" <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
>> #3: Logical Interface: Use of the Virtual LLID
>>
>>  Clarify the use of virtual LLID and how this is used in the scope of
>>  PMIP6.
>>  Discuss the solution and propose text and ensure there is clear consensus
>>  before you can close this issue.
>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email