IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Comment on draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Wed, 27 July 2011 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3D921F858C for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.304
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.705, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yg4vLTYErK-F for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1A921F8588 for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=1031; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1311743243; x=1312952843; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ILBL2v9+cYgJ6pN6sfIsP82PZs0nJUiFSjwImnQBLEI=; b=JvK3VpVbuBvn1l7SBXsGRYG8nEcTYWgZldbZhn/pjOiSStiJ/O9BhJUx C7lXGxACAeu4PXMh0WU8dkEmh3Xw2pk8PfevXdZjQaNrmZwFFi+a8Skq+ fNa0tWoyd9bGiM8w5HmIvj0a+tevZ1p5j0AGh3onBI5JNpyZzgeiHCsuh w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EALabL06rRDoH/2dsb2JhbAA1AQEBAQIBFAErAwFBBQ4BCWZRAQEFDwgnpyl3iHyjH55ThkAEh1eLHoUQi3I
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,274,1309737600"; d="scan'208";a="6787948"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jul 2011 05:07:22 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6R57M88006946; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:07:22 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:21 -0700
Received: from 10.32.243.74 ([10.32.243.74]) by xmb-sjc-214.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:07:21 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:07:19 -0700
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
Message-ID: <CA54EB17.22995%sgundave@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Comment on draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01
Thread-Index: AcxMGw83gSeZcBNNUUCsRmPXtwPrCw==
In-Reply-To: <4E2F5567.8060009@kddilabs.jp>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2011 05:07:21.0839 (UTC) FILETIME=[10E84FF0:01CC4C1B]
Cc: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] Comment on draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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/options/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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:07:24 -0000

Hi Yokota-san,

> I see that you want them to be separated for fast move.

Nope, both have different purposes. One is about offload and other is about
IP flow mobility across multi-access. Offload takes away the mobility, its
non-mobility, its RO and is not specific to multi-interface terminals...so,
the use-cases are different and the option purpose is different. Use of the
same option does not mandate feature collapse in one document. Offload is
not associating a flow with an access. But, on the same access, its taking
two flows in two different paths. This is routing. Hope this clarifies.

The issue about flow mobility draft is finding the common base line that we
can find agreement and move it forward.

 


Regards
Sri




On 7/26/11 5:01 PM, "Hidetoshi Yokota" <yokota@kddilabs.jp> wrote:

> Hi Sri,
> 
> I see that you want them to be separated for fast move. I really feel
> empathy for the flow mobility draft and I do hope to see some progress
> in this meeting...
> 
> Regards,

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email