IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08 and RFC 7109

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Thu, 06 February 2014 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962671A013D for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:34:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YrT5pJ2MJzqQ for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:34:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83371A0186 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ec20so1623855lab.9 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 07:34:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OzHrQqIfO2GTjwFKxNA08BDTI26ZyFRB/cfOlPU+WLU=; b=Az3CDXglehM3c0nZWK2W5mS+b4DIehWILUhiDRv7EryZ47DD35phoba6UUQXCFIhF+ JhHm7roOH7NZ/WTe+ULkWNvBkX2aHRq+GVe58Tgt66n8uQIvUGQTJjkDJtDqDq5qNjvY lgr0Yiy1BvbcU1zOnefL7ogNAT9B7p1WCOw7nb1/Y1c7iU0qLhIpJ4DwJtAtqjQLEFEb nsEuXP+IzfKqvc7yVp6CKq/8lzCiyPQ0g3PKVQzTkFRYy1z4dbiWpk8QGz+q907Lt8Ng Vf/DAiaxzzAjO5oDXGErnHVgwU3Xswg0de88bRidKR5/f1FcxE3/CmVLjyRv/JgEaXuC Ej/Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.8.47 with SMTP id o15mr6129679laa.20.1391700855922; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 07:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.170.193 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:34:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52F291E9.6030309@innovationslab.net>
References: <CAC8QAcf6bLXLW-Z175vTaSNkqtikP0MpLhKp8S8M+uaTUv9ODA@mail.gmail.com> <52F291E9.6030309@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 09:34:15 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAceu9hWPq-TSaAAGH6R4VzYxfnZWuZH-5GDzR2_7tpJ=rQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3640226a3f804f1be9b5b"
Subject: Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08 and RFC 7109
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:34:19 -0000

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>wrote:

> Keeping in mind that 7109 is a non-consensus & experimental RFC via the
> Independent Stream...
>
>
For clarification, I did not say otherwise.

All the extensions proposed in RFC 7109 are recorded by IANA as follows:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xhtml


I said that these extensions are relevant to
draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob

Regards,

Behcet

> On 2/5/14 11:36 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > Please take a look at the newly published RFC 7109,
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7109
> >
> > This RFC is very relevant to draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob, due to
> > HA-LMA relationship.
> >
> > New Flow Binding messages defined in RFC 7109 are very relevant.
> >
> > Mobility option extensions to Flow Identification Mobility option defined
> > in RFC 7109 are also very relevant.
> >
> > There is point in reinventing the wheel. Here it is there make use of it.
> > By the way I don't mind if you wish to keep using BID anymore :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Behcet
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email