Re: [netext] #12: missing considerations on how to maintain consistent forwarding policies

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Thu, 14 February 2013 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB3221F858C for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:20:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fzeNg30PXsqx for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:20:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E7021F85A2 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 368A489502B; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:20:34 +0100 (CET)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (82.158.126.26.dyn.user.ono.com [82.158.126.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp02.uc3m.es) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08CD576760F; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:20:34 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1360876833.4271.31.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: pierrick.seite@orange.com
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:20:33 +0100
In-Reply-To: <9141_1360838949_511CC125_9141_1551_1_81C77F07008CA24F9783A98CFD706F7108D0DA@PEXCVZYM12.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <066.21c3ae47b2fbf187e34cb9093fff7c09@trac.tools.ietf.org> <081.e1b81f2e36781de90e260334486aa93b@trac.tools.ietf.org> <9141_1360838949_511CC125_9141_1551_1_81C77F07008CA24F9783A98CFD706F7108D0DA@PEXCVZYM12.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-19638.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--33.980-7.0-31-1
X-imss-scan-details: No--33.980-7.0-31-1
Cc: 'netext issue tracker' <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] #12: missing considerations on how to maintain consistent forwarding policies
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:20:41 -0000

Hi Pierrick,

Please see inline below.

On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 10:49 +0000, pierrick.seite@orange.com wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Clearly, I'm not suggesting to describe mechanism for policy
> alignment, let alone specifying MN-MAG signaling.

OK, glad we are on the same page :D

> 
> Annex giving example on what can be done with L2 signaling may help.
> However, I think, the draft should state simple and clear assumptions
> on mobility control to avoid ambiguity on policy alignment. Basically,
> I suggest to add the following assumption (at least for prefix sharing
> scenario):
> 
> The MN makes the final IP flow mobility decision, then the LMA follows
> that decision and update its forwarding state accordingly. Note that,
> It does not prevent network initiated mobility, the network still
> could trigger mobility on the MN side via out-of-band mechanisms (e.g.
> 3GPP/ANDSF sends updated routing policies to the MN)... Actually, I'm
> suggesting the following statement "the MN always makes the final
> decision"

OK, let me add some text along those lines in the next version of the
draft.

Thanks!

> 
> Pierrick
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] De la
> > part de netext issue tracker
> > Envoyé : mercredi 13 février 2013 19:25
> > À : draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob@tools.ietf.org; cjbc@it.uc3m.es
> > Cc : netext@ietf.org
> > Objet : Re: [netext] #12: missing considerations on how to maintain
> > consistent forwarding policies
> > 
> > #12: missing considerations on how to maintain consistent forwarding
> > policies
> > 
> > 
> > Comment (by cjbc@it.uc3m.es):
> > 
> >  (apologies for not addressing this until now)
> > 
> >  I agree policy consistency is critical, and this is actually reflected
> > in  the draft. However, since the charter does not allows any type of
> > IP  signaling between the MAG and LMA, specifying any type of policy
> > alignment  signaling as part of the document seems to be clearly out of
> > the scope.
> >  The consensus I got from the WG (based on current charter boundaries)
> > was  to leave that unspecified, so it can be done using L2 signaling
> > for  example (and be specified by other SDOs).
> > 
> >  Do you have any suggestion on how to give clues without specifying a
> > solution in the document? Would it be enough to provide informative
> > examples (e.g., conveying that info as part of L2 signaling)?
> > 
> > --
> > -------------------------------------+---------------------------------
> > -
> > -------------------------------------+---
> >  Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-netext-
> >   pierrick.seite@orange.com          |  pmipv6-flowmob@tools.ietf.org
> >      Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new
> >  Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
> > Component:  pmipv6-flowmob           |     Version:
> >  Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:
> >  Keywords:                           |
> > -------------------------------------+---------------------------------
> > -
> > -------------------------------------+---
> > 
> > Ticket URL:
> > <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/12#comment:1>
> > netext <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netext mailing list
> > netext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 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,
> France Telecom - 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, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>