Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links
Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 15 March 2011 23:50 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 3AC703A6E48 for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.287
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.312, 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 BoP-yX-XXdZd for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:50:36 -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 1F1833A6F1B for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so1210707fxm.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:52:01 -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=LzAulSSZ6Dp6GLZzvjQcbqqvFGbiN2bVk/GYR5OTkPc=; b=tJnxLA9b4wxPy9x9w+wbX4SuM0eo8SQnWxDeneHmtFig64Zf0DwaIaomsbLewxAseL O/JqICkTtwyQamq3O7zCTpeQMyanbXbdSb+kIqvq4Nc1yXw0iG1pSvJXiwna44ehbwI6 Q0iIzN+haw/yvp2LFmoY/xgYsAP+YDV8uQsqg=
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=KmOMpqFu01r1apS3qs6YWTkZTDaBA/ikVS9LVm/ty1Owz+kezv88RWV8vMK2jwrCk6 8QkteP9ZwF9YNW+TvSpAjsm0dgd12PG3KuWyu+tn23KvLUkPL/aeZeIEsnizeVbXxsUa Nfgwm/yxEfURlL0d21/0PA2FPn61DEpCnR3b4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.127.210 with SMTP id h18mr140102fas.77.1300233091216; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.78.135 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C9A4171A.13628%sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <AANLkTin_ZbJmkbS3d2U0RGcSp4nCFD0H_VjeUQzQdB6H@mail.gmail.com> <C9A4171A.13628%sgundave@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:51:31 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=QuJKcKFRALjCKmyVy81Fiu=snQsk9dJ+6P6tE@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links
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 23:50:38 -0000
Sri: I am going to repeat it once again: you are equating advertizing or per-MN subnet prefix to a point-to-point link, but these are two different things, thus I am saying that we have a problem as 5213 is limited to support of point-to-point links. --julien 2011/3/14 Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>: > Julien: > > Lets see, what is the violation here ? > > - We are stating the logical interface appears to the applications as an > interface attached to a shared link. For the simple reason, that we have > multiple neighbors on different network segments attached through different > sub-interface of that logical interface. We don't have a single > neighbor/MAG. > > - "Underneath the logical interface ...", there are sub-interfaces which may > be very well attached to different p2p links. As long as the network has the > semantics to send a RA with PIO, exclusively to this node, no other node on > that access link can receive that Prefix set, we are confirming to 5213 link > model. From any of the MAG's perspective, attached to any of the access > links, it can still be kept as a p2p link > > - Exposing the logical interface as a shared link to the applications on the > *mobile node*, is not violating 5213 principles. The path chosen for a > packet through a sub-interface can be still a p2p link and the rules of > link-layer resolution of the peer, or adding l2 headers skipping l2 > resolution, is still the approach in use. > > > > > Sri > > > > > > > > > On 3/14/11 5:20 PM, "Julien Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sri - >> >> 5213 supports only PtP links thus I do not understand how the >> following resolution resolves anything. Please clarify what is the >> issue you' re addressing and how this is addressing it. >> >> --julien >> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links >>> >>> Clarify the use and >>>> behavior of the logical interface on PtP links. >>> >>> >>> Folks: Again, reflecting the team's contributions on this topic, the authors >>> of this document have discussed this and resolve it with the following text. >>> The key points we tried to reflect are around that the logical interface >>> appears to the application as a shared link. There were thoughts around >>> making it appear like a p2p link, given that there are multiple neighbors on >>> each sub interface, this choice appears reasonable. With respect to how a >>> packet is transmitted, is still based on the chosen link model at each sub >>> interface level. Let us know, if you see any issues with it. This is proven >>> based on the multiple implementations from some of the co-authors of this >>> doc. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> 6.3. Supported Link models for a logical interface >>> >>> The sub-interfaces of a logical interface can be bound to a point-to- >>> point or a shared link (Example: LTE and WLAN). The logical >>> interface appears as a shared-link to the applications, and adapts to >>> the link model of the sub-interface for packet communication. For >>> example, when transmitting a packet on a sub-interface which is >>> attached to a p2p link, the transmission conforms to the p2p link >>> model and when transmitting on a sub-interface attached to a shared >>> link, the transmission conforms to the shared link model. >>> >>> Based on the link to which the sub-interface is attached to, the >>> layer-2 resolutions may or may not be needed. If the interface is >>> bound to a P2P link with PPP running, there will not be any link- >>> layer resolutions in the form of ARP/ND messages. However, if the >>> interface is bound to a shared link such as Ethernet, there will be >>> ND resolutions. The logical interface implementation has to maintain >>> the required link model and the associated state for each sub- >>> interface. >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/3/11 9:17 AM, "netext issue tracker" <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links >>> >>> Clarify the use and >>>> behavior of the logical interface on PtP links. >>> >>> -- >>>> >>> ---------------------------------------+------------------------------------ >>> >>>> Reporter: basavaraj.patil@Š | Owner: telemaco.melia@Š >>>> >>> Type: defect | Status: new >>>> >>> Priority: major | Milestone: >>>> >>> Component: logical-interface-support | Version: >>>> >>> Severity: - | Keywords: >>>> >>> ---------------------------------------+------------------------------------ >>> >>>> >>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/4> >>> netext >>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/> >>> >>> _____________________________________________ >>>> __ >>> netext mailing >>>> list >>> netext@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netext mailing list >>> netext@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>> > >
- [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to … netext issue tracker
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… pierrick.seite
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… pierrick.seite
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… pierrick.seite
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… pierrick.seite