IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] Update on flow mobility following discussion with ADs

Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@cisco.com> Wed, 02 March 2011 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rkoodli@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F633A6850 for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:37:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.019
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.580, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qw9PVkbQ6+yx for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:37:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEB73A6882 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:37:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rkoodli@cisco.com; l=1162; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1299098300; x=1300307900; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AtDx4aINlyihzVhHA8oMCEfz2UwGEIoZ/Iak/ilXAZE=; b=bg2Cd+a8AP8Gpbi9QtTPHqge4aEGuJhsuWLud8VeKNOBXYktLxgvTRu9 7sdf8JIXywbRV3SidLMCxVfnTEYuF3/mxlc5ucCz/jGPapYrZWdrzrhD6 f01YrRVvKs4O6MHSLAqaFAPjKBi1aj7XKeIAoRRiaphkC/KVkz9Fwas3P 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEALI5bk2tJV2a/2dsb2JhbACmbnSiept8hWEEhReHD4NG
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,255,1297036800"; d="scan'208";a="222007377"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2011 20:38:20 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p22KcJnK022951; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:38:19 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:38:19 -0600
Received: from 10.21.87.130 ([10.21.87.130]) by XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:38:18 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0800
From: Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@cisco.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, sgundave@cisco.com
Message-ID: <C993EAEA.E051%rkoodli@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] Update on flow mobility following discussion with ADs
Thread-Index: AcvZGd+phy/PpL1ogkySF422nsR8/A==
In-Reply-To: <4D6E9F44.7060202@piuha.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2011 20:38:19.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[C421A460:01CBD919]
Cc: netext@ietf.org, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [netext] Update on flow mobility following discussion with ADs
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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, 02 Mar 2011 20:37:15 -0000

On 3/2/11 11:49 AM, "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

> Sri:
> 
> What Basavaraj said. I don't think the number of specifications is a big
> concern either now or later. Split the documents the way you like. Lets
> discuss functionality, robustness, assumptions instead -- those are
> important.


I agree that the spec should be robust, and should work under conditions
assuming existing & new L2 signaling, as well as under conditions when new
L2 signaling is unavailable.

It's a question of whether we agree that LMA-MAG signaling could also be
used in addition to relying only on L2 signaling for flow mobility.


> 
> (And of course, splitting to different specifications should not be
> misused to hide a technical omission or a problem.)

I would focus on getting a protocol that works under different cases and not
just under continued reliance on (existing and new) L2 signaling. (I am not
referring to new IP signaling between MN and MAG).

-Rajeev


> 
> Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email