Re: [netext] Question on I-D: draft-bernardos-mif-pmip-00.txt

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Tue, 21 July 2009 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 2CA433A6994 for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 UVigVH9F4vht for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CEF3A6A60 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [163.117.139.72] (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697AE7EF450; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:23:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
In-Reply-To: <C68A3CCD.2B762%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
References: <C68A3CCD.2B762%basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-WJTVhLItDkXwPGw3njvl"
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:24:01 +0200
Message-Id: <1248168241.4661.5.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1.1
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-5.6.0.1016-16776.004
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Question on I-D: draft-bernardos-mif-pmip-00.txt
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/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, 21 Jul 2009 09:36:41 -0000

Hi Raj,

On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 22:25 +0200, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote: 
> Hello,
> 
> The I-D <draft-bernardos-mif-pmip-00.txt> states:
> 
> "   In the context of PMIPv6, current specification [RFC5213] does not
>    address the case of a MIF node attaching to a PMIPv6 domain. We
>    argue it is important to enable PMIPv6 to bring MIF nodes the
>    advantages related to the simultaneous use of multiple interfaces.
>    Moreover a MIF node could be seen as a not-modified host implementing
>    the right technology for multi-interface handling.
> "
> 
> RFC5213 does support a multi-interface host to connect to a PMIP6 domain. A
> MIF host which attaches via multiple interfaces to a PMIP6 domain will be
> assigned unique HNPs for each of the interfaces. A separate BCE is created
> in the LMA for each interface. Hence I am not sure what you are refering to
> in the I-D w.r.t MIF hosts attaching to a PMIP6 domain.

We are referring to use cases such as the one you mentions below.
Current PMIPv6 specification does not fully address how to support
multi-interfaces nodes, since a different mobility session is devoted
for each interface, this making some things (such as flow mobility) hard
to provide.

In addition a MIF node could help to meet the no-host-modifications
requirement as showed in the preliminary test we conducted.

> 
> The use case in Sec 3 is a bit more illustrative of the problem statement
> that you are trying to solve. The capability to move a flow between
> interfaces is being dealt with as part of the flow mobility work. This is a
> discussion item in the NetExt2 BoF at IETF75. The outcome of the BoF will
> determine what we do in the NetExt WG w.r.t flow mobility.
> 
> The experiments that you have conducted on different OS' are interesting.


Thanks, we plan to conduct more experiments in the future. We will
further compound the initial experiments with a complete solution
exploiting weak host model capabilities.

Carlos

> 
> -Raj
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67