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

["Laganier, Julien" <[e-mail]>]

I completely agree.

--julien

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Tran Minh Trung
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 11:52 PM
> To: Koodli, Rajeev
> Cc: [e-mail]; Laganier, Julien
> Subject: Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?
> 
> You are right. After LMA deciding to move the flows, both MAG2 and
> MAG1 will advertise p3. It means that the prefix p3 is now shared
> across 2 physical interfaces.
> That is the reason why, IMHO, we do not need to consider two different
> scenarios, just consider shared-prefix model is enough.
> 
> If we have a solution for the LMA to assign the same prefix(es) to
> MAGs for the logical interface, then it is very easy to support flow
> mobility.
> 
> Regards,
> TrungTM
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Koodli, Rajeev <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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: [e-mail] on behalf of Tran Minh Trung
> > Sent: Mon 8/2/2010 7:48 PM
> > To: Koodli, Rajeev
> > Cc: Laganier, Julien; [e-mail]; Youn-Hee Han; [e-mail]
> > 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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: [e-mail] on behalf of Laganier, Julien
> >> Sent: Thu 7/29/2010 4:49 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]; Youn-Hee Han
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> 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
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netext mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> 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 : [phone],   Fax : [phone]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netext mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > 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 : [phone],   Fax : [phone]