IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08.txt]

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com> Mon, 21 October 2013 23:17 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 3E15411E86CB for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cv0oI0pBY6rB for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6035A11E844F for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1655; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1382397420; x=1383607020; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=iB1xkVI10sx2VXOUxtO+fhvJzvaHuYK75Lfj8Lr/vjM=; b=jlBo1F+ANv0BDZTFfSURkWY0tVIwK2qQSMkYytV+ElSmAlvtbRH8Ft/O QfOhigsYiixZG0Xe0jRvhNbAj4Y2CZ3ttoP1pXtrKZhTXba0OiJhotpfc 3DIbfceQR//andFQm56tYBPHiVhlDdjfwrwKTl6dbPIB7x9nBY1rQd6eu s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAMW0ZVKtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4VL1xS4EwFnSCJwEEAQEBax0BCCJLCyUCBAESCId+DbpOBI8qOIMfgQoDiQehCYMkgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,543,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="274866424"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2013 23:17:00 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9LNGx9R018744 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:16:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.192]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:16:59 -0500
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <rkoodli@cisco.com>, "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08.txt]
Thread-Index: AQHOzrOkuYeMLy5RnkWHKmt+Jhsq3A==
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:16:59 +0000
Message-ID: <24C0F3E22276D9438D6F366EB89FAEA81DCBF601@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C52FDEBC843C44DBAF2CA6A30662C6D01621E63@xmb-aln-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.32.246.214]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <3217E21FBEE8474DB0B8333609F475E9@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08.txt]
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:17:11 -0000

Hi Carlos/Rajeev:

I agree, we did not resolve this issue one way or the other.

How about the following ?

We can still the keep the FMI message, its use and the text in the spec.
No changes are needed.  But, under the wrappers, FMI message can be a UPN
message with a NR code of "FMI". So, in the format section, we point to
the UPN message.

Otherwise, we have to add all the considerations around security, IPSec
PAD entries, IPv4 transport, ..etc and that is not there currently in the
spec. May end up duplicating lot of text. Even for implementation, its
additional bit of text dealing with a new message type.

This has least impact on the existing text. Else, we need to revert to the
prev version.

Is this a reasonable way-forward ?




Regards
Sri




On 10/21/13 3:30 PM, "Rajeev Koodli (rkoodli)" <rkoodli@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>Hi Carlos,
>
>
>On 10/21/13 3:24 PM, "Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Following the discussion during the last meeting, I've updated the
>>draft. As requested by the WG, it now uses the Update Notifications for
>>Proxy Mobile IPv6.
>
>Hmm? I don't recall any discussion on this..Perhaps I missed the
>response(s) to my email.
>We need to discuss this :)
>
>-Rajeev
>
>
>
>>
>>Comments are welcome. I'd like to ask people that submitted an issue to
>>the tracker to see if you are happy with the revision (and close the
>>issue if that is the case).
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Carlos
>
>_______________________________________________
>netext mailing list
>netext@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email