Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links

[Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>]

Pierrick,

I am confused... Do you disagree that a vanilla IEEE 802.11 isn't a
point-to-point link?

--julien

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> agreed
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Sri Gundavelli [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Envoyé : mercredi 16 mars 2011 02:17
>> À : SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN; [e-mail]
>> Cc : [e-mail]
>> Objet : Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links
>>
>> Hi Pierrick,
>>
>> The sentence can be reworded. Agree, the link model between the MAG and
>> the
>> MN is still a point-to-point link. From 5213 perspective, as long as the
>> point-to-point communication semantics are there between the MN and MAG,
>> we
>> meet the requirement and there is no protocol violation.  How that P2P
>> link
>> model is achieved, based a tunnel interface, putting the access point in a
>> unicast mode, are all the possible options.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/15/11 1:21 AM, "[e-mail]"
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Hi Sri,
>> >
>> > If I understand correctly, there is no violation of RFC5213 if all
>> physical
>> > links are p2p. However the proposed text allows the virtual interface to
>> bound
>> > physical shared links. If so, I think we may have the issue described in
>> > section 4.2 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if-03.
>> > Maybe, the text should be clarified to restrict to physical p2p links.
>> >
>> > BR,
>> > Pierrick
>> >
>> >> -----Message d'origine-----
>> >> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la
>> part
>> >> de Sri Gundavelli
>> >> Envoyé : mardi 15 mars 2011 04:04
>> >> À : Julien Laganier
>> >> Cc : [e-mail]
>> >> Objet : Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point
>> links
>> >>
>> >> Julien:
>> >>
>> >> Lets see, what is the violation here ?
>> >>
>> >> - We are stating the logical interface appears to the applications as
>> an
>> >> interface attached to a shared link. For the simple reason, that we
>> have
>> >> multiple neighbors on different network segments attached through
>> >> different
>> >> sub-interface of that logical interface. We don't have a single
>> >> neighbor/MAG.
>> >>
>> >> - "Underneath the logical interface ...", there are sub-interfaces
>> which
>> >> may
>> >> be very well attached to different p2p links. As long as the network
>> has
>> >> the
>> >> semantics to send a RA with PIO, exclusively to this node, no other
>> node
>> >> on
>> >> that access link can receive that Prefix set, we are confirming to 5213
>> >> link
>> >> model. From any of the MAG's perspective, attached to any of the access
>> >> links, it can still be kept as a p2p link
>> >>
>> >> - Exposing the logical interface as a shared link to the applications
>> on
>> >> the
>> >> *mobile node*, is not violating 5213 principles. The path chosen for a
>> >> packet through a sub-interface can be still a p2p link and the rules of
>> >> link-layer resolution of the peer, or adding l2 headers skipping l2
>> >> resolution, is still the approach in use.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sri
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 3/14/11 5:20 PM, "Julien Laganier" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Sri -
>> >>>
>> >>> 5213 supports only PtP links thus I do not understand how the
>> >>> following resolution resolves anything. Please clarify what is the
>> >>> issue you' re addressing and how this is addressing it.
>> >>>
>> >>> --julien
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>> #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  Clarify the use and
>> >>>>> behavior of the logical interface on PtP links.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Folks: Again, reflecting the team's contributions on this topic, the
>> >> authors
>> >>>> of this document have discussed this and resolve it with the
>> following
>> >> text.
>> >>>> The key points we tried to reflect are around that the logical
>> >> interface
>> >>>> appears to the application as a shared link. There were thoughts
>> around
>> >>>> making it appear like a p2p link, given that there are multiple
>> >> neighbors on
>> >>>> each sub interface, this choice appears reasonable. With respect to
>> how
>> >> a
>> >>>> packet is transmitted, is still based on the chosen link model at
>> each
>> >> sub
>> >>>> interface level. Let us know, if you see any issues with it. This is
>> >> proven
>> >>>> based on the multiple implementations from some of the co-authors of
>> >> this
>> >>>> doc.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ---
>> >>>> 6.3.  Supported Link models for a logical interface
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  The sub-interfaces of a logical interface can be bound to a point-
>> to-
>> >>>>   point or a shared link (Example: LTE and WLAN).  The logical
>> >>>>   interface appears as a shared-link to the applications, and adapts
>> to
>> >>>>   the link model of the sub-interface for packet communication.  For
>> >>>>   example, when transmitting a packet on a sub-interface which is
>> >>>>   attached to a p2p link, the transmission conforms to the p2p link
>> >>>>   model and when transmitting on a sub-interface attached to a shared
>> >>>>   link, the transmission conforms to the shared link model.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>   Based on the link to which the sub-interface is attached to, the
>> >>>>   layer-2 resolutions may or may not be needed.  If the interface is
>> >>>>   bound to a P2P link with PPP running, there will not be any link-
>> >>>>   layer resolutions in the form of ARP/ND messages.  However, if the
>> >>>>   interface is bound to a shared link such as Ethernet, there will be
>> >>>>   ND resolutions.  The logical interface implementation has to
>> maintain
>> >>>>   the required link model and the associated state for each sub-
>> >>>>   interface.
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 3/3/11 9:17 AM, "netext issue tracker"
>> >> <[e-mail]>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  Clarify the use and
>> >>>>> behavior of the logical interface on PtP links.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> ---------------------------------------+-----------------------------
>> --
>> >> -----
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> Reporter:  basavaraj.patil@Š          |       Owner:  telemaco.melia@Š
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>     Type:  defect                     |      Status:  new
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>  Priority:  major                      |   Milestone:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Component:  logical-interface-support  |     Version:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>  Severity:  -                          |    Keywords:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> ---------------------------------------+-----------------------------
>> --
>> >> -----
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/4>
>> >>>> netext
>> >>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _____________________________________________
>> >>>>> __
>> >>>> netext mailing
>> >>>>> list
>> >>>> [e-mail]
>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> netext mailing list
>> >>>> [e-mail]
>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> netext mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
>