[Netext] Keep missing the point .. Re: next steps for netext

[hesham at elevatemobile.com (Hesham Soliman)]

On 8/04/09 10:12 AM, "Vijay Devarapalli" <vijay at wichorus.com> wrote:

> Hesham Soliman wrote:
>> I don't know which people you're talking about or on which planet this stuff
>> is being deployed.
> 
> Thats easy. Search for "LTE HRPD" at google.com. :)
> 
>> In any case, I'm interested in discussing technical
>> aspects of this work and I have zero interest in politics and projections.
> 
> But I don't see that. You seem to want to tell people to use Mobile IPv6
> instead of PMIPv6. That doesn't help anyone, IMHO.

=> I'm not *telling* people to do it, I'm arguing that this is the best
approach. All I'm getting back is "SDOx want this" and "people want this"
and "the ship has sailed". It's very frustrating to have a discussion like
this instead of showing a real PS.

> 
> FWIW, the way I see it, the flow mobility solution for PMIPv6 does not
> have to be that different from what we have for MIPv6. Instead of the
> mobile node sending the service selection option (defined in RFC 5149)
> and flow identification option in the BU, it?s the MAG that sends this
> information in the PBU. The solution is the same. You tell the HA or the
> LMA which flow filters to install.
> 
> The solution could be along the lines I wrote in section 3.3 of
> draft-devarapalli-netlmm-multihoming-01.txt (submitted in Nov 2007). It says

=> If there is a solution to be had I don't care whether it uses our draft
or something new. My point is that making those decisions in the network
just doesn't work. Yes there bits on the wire that can do anything but the
decision to trigger these actions in the network is flawed. And without
getting into too much detail, before we decide to go one way or another, I
think a technical argument needs to be made about "why" it's needed and not
"how" it might work. This might sound old-fashioned these days but I find it
difficult to rubber stamp things without understanding why.
This is all I'm going to say about this BoF unless someone has a PS to
discuss.

Hesham

> 
>     For this scenario to work, the mobile node must be able to indicate
>     to the attached MAG which flow will be sent over the attachment to
>     the MAG.  It may do this by indicating the service identifer during
>     the layer 2 attachment to the MAG.  The service identifier is
>     described in [4].  The MAG, in turn must include the flow information
>     in the Proxy Binding Update sent to the LMA.  The MAG may use the
>     Service Selection option [4] in the Proxy Binding Update to indicate
>     the flow information.  The MAG may also contruct a flow filter and
>     convey the information in the Proxy Binding Update.  See [3] for more
>     information on carrying flow filters in the proxy binding update.
> 
>     The LMA processes the Proxy Binding Update from the MAG and creates a
>     filter based on the flow information.  The flow filters may be stored
>     in the binding cache entry for the mobile node.
> 
>     [3]  Soliman, H., "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and Nemo Basic
>          Support", draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04 (work in
>          progress), March 2007.
> 
>     [4]  Korhonen, J., Nilsson, U., and V. Devarapalli, "Service
>          Selection for Mobile IPv6", draft-korhonen-mip6-service-04 (work
>          in progress), October 2007.
> 
> [4] got published as RFC 5149.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think we should get into discussing solutions at this
> point. The above is to just show that the MIPv6 solutions can be re-used
> for PMIPv6. We don't have to re-invent what we have done in the IETF so far.
> 
> I would prefer that we let the market decide whether they want to go
> with MIPv6 or PMIPv6. Not for us lecture folks to use MIPv6 or PMIPv6.
> that would be a political discussion. :)
> 
> Vijay
> 
>> 
>> Hesham
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/04/09 4:59 AM, "Vijay Devarapalli" <vijay at wichorus.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> George, Hesham,
>>> 
>>> I don't see the point in having philosophical discussions on whether
>>> Mobile IPv6 or Proxy Mobile IPv6 should be used at this point. That ship
>>> has sailed. What we have as a reality is folks deploying systems with
>>> inter access technology handovers with PMIPv6 as the mobility management
>>> protocol. Asking these folks to now use Mobile IPv6 does not help
>>> anyone, IMHO.
>>> 
>>> Vijay
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>