Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-09.txt]

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

Hi Hidetoshi,

Thanks for your comments. Please see inline below.

On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 13:40 +0900, Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:
> Hello Carlos,
> 
> Thanks for updating the draft. 
> I have a couple of questions and comments:
> 
> o In Section 3.2.1, which is the shared prefix case, there is no
> message exchange between the LMA and MAG, so there is no flow
> information on the MAG side. It should work in the sense of routing,
> but if, for example, each flow has a specific QoS, the MAG should also
> need to know which flow should go on which QoS path especially for
> upstream traffic towards the LMA. Or, the MAG may want to send a
> trigger for flow mobility to the MN (the exact mechanism is out of
> scope).  Some mobility signaling should be there, too.

[Carlos] There was a discussion on this in the past (don't remember
exactly when, but I recall that Rajeev was one of the drivers) and the
group decision was to make the signaling at the prefix level, not at
flow level. If the group think there is value on supporting
flow-granularity signaling, we could add it.

> 
> o In Section 3.3, FMI/FMA are revived considering the case where UPN
> is not supported, but they convey very little information. There is no
> special information that cannot be conveyed by the existing messages.
> Since RFC7077 is now a proposed standard, I cannot think of a
> situation where the UPN/UPA are not supported, nevertheless FMI/FMA
> are supported. It rather seems more natural to mandate the support of
> RFC7077 or to mandate FMI/FMA for all flow mobility operations.
> Also, when compared with UPN/UPA case in Figure 4, FMI/FMA seem to
> convey different set of parameters in Figure 7. Could you clarify it a
> little bit more please?
> 

[Carlos] As Pierrick has already replied to you, there was discussion in
London about supporting both mechanisms. I think this deserves another
thread on the mailing list devoted to that discussion. As I expressed in
a previous e-mail, my personal opinion as WG member is that we should go
for just one signaling mechanism (being UPN/UPA my preference), but here
I'm acting as the editor of the document and I just updated the document
to reflect the consensus of the room in London.

> o In Section 3.3, just above Figure 7, there is a description: "...,
> and the type of flow mobility operation (add flow)", but does RFC6089
> define such an operation code? This kind of operation should also be
> defined in the draft.

[Carlos] By "add", a lifetime higher than 0 is meant (as 0 means
"remove"). I agree this should be clarified in the document. Thanks for
the comment.

Once again, thanks for your comments!

Carlos

> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Hidetoshi Yokota
> 
> KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
> e-mail:[e-mail]
> 
> 
> (2014/06/14 2:16), Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > As agreed in London, I've updated the flow mobility draft to include
> > also the FMI/FMA signaling option (in addition to the use of Update
> > Notifications). The draft also includes a mechanism to allow selecting
> > which one of the two signaling mechanisms to use.
> > 
> > In my personal opinion, it'd be much cleaner and simpler to just specify
> > one signaling mechanism, but this is up to the WG to decide.
> > 
> > Comments, reviews and discussion on this new revision would be welcome.
> > Hopefully we could get at least a new revision before Toronto.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Carlos
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > netext mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext