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

I think it is simple, any MAG to which the mobile node is attached shall forward packets from/to that mobile node. That does not require signaling when LMA decides to move a flow.

--julien

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koodli, Rajeev [mailto:rkoodli@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 10:23 PM
> To: Tran Minh Trung
> Cc: Laganier, Julien; cjbc@it.uc3m.es; Youn-Hee Han; netext@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?
> 
> 
> Even though the logical interface can make the packets available to the
> MN, the main issue is whether MAG1 forwards those packets.
> MAG1 needs to advertise p3 as well. It is for such cases we need
> signaling from LMA *whenever* the LMA decides to move the flow(s).
> 
> -Rajeev
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: trungtm2909@gmail.com on behalf of Tran Minh Trung
> Sent: Mon 8/2/2010 7:48 PM
> To: Koodli, Rajeev
> Cc: Laganier, Julien; cjbc@it.uc3m.es; Youn-Hee Han; netext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?
> 
> I agree that the prefix p3, according to RFC 5213 , does not have to
> be simultaneously assigned to MAG1. However when we use logical
> interface at the MN, the prefix p3 should be shareable to allow flow
> mobility.  In addition, the logical interface can receive packets sent
> to any of its sub-interfaces as described in
> draft-melia-netext-logical-interface-support-01 (property #2).
> 
> The question here is how to change RFC 5213 to support shared-prefix
> model?
> 
> Regards,
> TrungTM
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Koodli, Rajeev <rkoodli@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Single prefix on multiple MAGs is clearly one choice.
> >
> > We agree that the prefix has to be valid on an interface for the
> corresponding flow to traverse the MAG.
> > If MAG1 has prefix p1 and MAG2 has p2, then the simplest form is p1
> and p2 are valid on both MAG1 and MAG2.
> > However, I should also be able to assign p3 to MAG2 (for example),
> which you can do today with RFC 5213.
> > The prefix p3 does not have to be simultaneously assigned to MAG1.
> This should be continued to be allowed with the flow mobility support.
> >
> > -Rajeev
> >
> >
> 
> 
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netext-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Laganier, Julien
> > Sent: Thu 7/29/2010 4:49 AM
> > To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es; Youn-Hee Han
> > Cc: netext@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?
> >
> > Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Youn-Hee,
> >>
> >> On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 21:43 +0900, Youn-Hee Han wrote:
> >> > Dear Bernardos,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'd like to ask a question about
> >> > "draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-00."
> >> >
> >> > In the call procedure figure, I noticed that traffic specification
> is
> >> > delivered to MAG from LMA.
> >> >
> >> > I understand that the specification should be managed at LMA to do
> a
> >> > traffic filtering.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > However, is such a traffic filtering still needed at MAG?
> >>
> >> The MAG needs to know the flow that is gonna be routed through it,
> so
> >> it can insert the required routing state.
> >
> > If a single prefix is use across all of the MN accesses then there's
> no need for this.
> >
> >> > IMHO, it is not needed at MAG. If so, why is the specification
> >> > delivered to MAG?
> >>
> >> This is something that can be discussed. The minimum info required
> is
> >> the MN's prefix of the moved flow, so the route is installed at the
> MAG.
> >> If finer control is required (e.g., prevent the MN send flows
> through a
> >> MAG that is not the one the LMA has setup flow mobility state, or
> other
> >> purposes), then the flow mobility (traffic selector, e.g., 5-tuple)
> >> should be delivered to the MAG.
> >
> > I don't think this is needed.
> >
> >> > Isn't sufficient that the home network prefix related to the
> traffic
> >> > is delivered to MAG?
> >>
> >> That'd be the minimum info. As mentioned before, the MAG may need
> the
> >> whole flow definition, and in that case the LMA has to deliver that
> >> information to the MAG.
> >
> > If a single prefix is use across all of the MN accesses then there's
> no need to do this.
> >
> > --julien
> > _______________________________________________
> > netext mailing list
> > netext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netext mailing list
> > netext@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Ph.D., Senior Member
> Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
> Standards Research Center
> 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 305-350, KOREA
> Tel : +82-42-860-1132,   Fax : +82-42-861-5404