Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 08:27 -0700, Laganier, Julien wrote:
> Tran Minh Trung wrote:
> > 
> > I agree that the prefix p3, according to RFC 5213 , does not have to
> > be simultaneously assigned to MAG1. 
> 
> I think talking about prefix assigned to a specific MAG is misleading. The prefix is assigned to the mobile node thru the NETLMM fabric, irrespective of which MAG(s) the mobile node is attached too.
> 
> When flow mobility is enabled, the prefixes assigned to the mobile node can be used thru more than one interfaces, attached to more than one MAG.
> 
> >                                          However when we use logical
> > interface at the MN, the prefix p3 should be shareable to allow flow
> > mobility.  In addition, the logical interface can receive packets sent
> > to any of its sub-interfaces as described in
> > draft-melia-netext-logical-interface-support-01 (property #2).
> > 
> > The question here is how to change RFC 5213 to support shared-prefix
> > model?

We should be careful about the wording, "shared-prefix model" is
commonly referred to the assignment of the same prefix to multiple MNs,
whereas here we are talking about assigning the same prefix to multiple
interfaces of the same MN. It is not exactly the same thing, IMHO.

Carlos

> 
> Right.
> 
> --julien
>  
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Koodli, Rajeev <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Single prefix on multiple MAGs is clearly one choice.
> > >
> > > We agree that the prefix has to be valid on an interface for the
> > corresponding flow to traverse the MAG.
> > > If MAG1 has prefix p1 and MAG2 has p2, then the simplest form is p1
> > and p2 are valid on both MAG1 and MAG2.
> > > However, I should also be able to assign p3 to MAG2 (for example),
> > which you can do today with RFC 5213.
> > > The prefix p3 does not have to be simultaneously assigned to MAG1.
> > This should be continued to be allowed with the flow mobility support.
> > >
> > > -Rajeev
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] on behalf of Laganier, Julien
> > > Sent: Thu 7/29/2010 4:49 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]; Youn-Hee Han
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?
> > >
> > > Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear Youn-Hee,
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 21:43 +0900, Youn-Hee Han wrote:
> > >> > Dear Bernardos,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I'd like to ask a question about
> > >> > "draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-00."
> > >> >
> > >> > In the call procedure figure, I noticed that traffic specification
> > is
> > >> > delivered to MAG from LMA.
> > >> >
> > >> > I understand that the specification should be managed at LMA to do
> > a
> > >> > traffic filtering.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > However, is such a traffic filtering still needed at MAG?
> > >>
> > >> The MAG needs to know the flow that is gonna be routed through it,
> > so
> > >> it can insert the required routing state.
> > >
> > > If a single prefix is use across all of the MN accesses then there's
> > no need for this.
> > >
> > >> > IMHO, it is not needed at MAG. If so, why is the specification
> > >> > delivered to MAG?
> > >>
> > >> This is something that can be discussed. The minimum info required
> > is
> > >> the MN's prefix of the moved flow, so the route is installed at the
> > MAG.
> > >> If finer control is required (e.g., prevent the MN send flows
> > through a
> > >> MAG that is not the one the LMA has setup flow mobility state, or
> > other
> > >> purposes), then the flow mobility (traffic selector, e.g., 5-tuple)
> > >> should be delivered to the MAG.
> > >
> > > I don't think this is needed.
> > >
> > >> > Isn't sufficient that the home network prefix related to the
> > traffic
> > >> > is delivered to MAG?
> > >>
> > >> That'd be the minimum info. As mentioned before, the MAG may need
> > the
> > >> whole flow definition, and in that case the LMA has to deliver that
> > >> information to the MAG.
> > >
> > > If a single prefix is use across all of the MN accesses then there's
> > no need to do this.
> > >
> > > --julien
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netext mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netext mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Ph.D., Senior Member
> > Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
> > Standards Research Center
> > 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 305-350, KOREA
> > Tel : [phone],   Fax : [phone]

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67