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

[Tran Minh Trung <[e-mail]>]

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]