Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sri,
  That is not really the point.

The point is that Flow Identification Mobility Option
defined in draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-06
has a sub-option called 
Traffic Selector sub-option

which can carry the TS.

This is to Carlos: 
Why are we reinventing the wheel? The sub-option has already been defined there 
(in Section 

4.2.1.4.)!



Cheers,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
> From: Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>
> To: Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Sent: Sat, August 7, 2010 2:38:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?
> 
> Hi Behcet:
> 
> >> You are right, we have to leverage the work done in  MEXT. The  Traffic
> >> Selectors for IPv4 and IPv6 flows can be  from the mext binary TS  work. I
> >> think, Carlos did provide the  TS option with a opaque field for  including
> >> the filter. 
> > 
> > Current definition is only allowing TS like binary TS of  George to be used.
> > There could be others like language based flow  descriptions proposed in the
> > past. Is this reusing mext work?
> > 
> > 
> 
> Sure. Currently, as you say, George's IPv4 and IPv6 binary  traffic selectors
> are referenced as traffic selectors. However, Carlos chose  a variable length
> TS field, so in future we can write Traffic Selectors in  English, Spanish,
> Turkish ... So, if you have one, just write that selector  in your favorite
> metalanguage and carlos can point to  that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
>