Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links

[Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julien,

I already agreed, we need to put a qualifier on that one sentence, which
states, the physical link being a shared link. If you agree, that qualifier
can be, "the physical link attached to the logical interface can be a shared
link, as long as it can meet the point-to-point link model semantics". Agree
? 


Regards
Sri




On 3/16/11 11:43 AM, "Julien Laganier" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sri,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I'm not sure, we can say, we need additional mechanisms in 802.11 to achieve
>> p2p link model. We are not talking about protocol extensions, its rather
>> about configuration. From PMIP perspective, we all agree, we need P2P link
>> model.
> 
> That is better, and different from what is in the draft that says
> shared link is supported.
> 
> 6.3.  Supported Link models for a logical interface
> 
>    The sub-interfaces of a logical interface can be bound to a point-to-
>    point or a shared link (Example: LTE and WLAN).
> 
> Do you disagree with the content of the draft?
> 
>>  If some one wants to connect trusted WLAN access networks with PMIP
>> domain, they can very well do that, as long as they support P2P link model.
> 
> Yes, as long as they support point to point link model, and unlike
> what is the current draft.
> 
>> We also agreed, we can achieve that with today's 802.11 standards and
>> today's boxes out there.
> 
> You can achieve that with today's 802.11 standards. Not sure about
> boxes out there. My AP only does shared link. This discussion seems to
> be moot since current APs do not have MAGs.
> 
>> How they do that, if that's by configuring unique SSID's per MN, unique
>> VLAN's, send unicast RA's per RFC-6085, set up some L3 tunnels, is beyond
>> the scope of PMIP.
> 
> Again, please do not equate sending unicast RAs with having a point to
> point link as these are two different things.
> 
> I do not care how having a point to point link on a physical interface
> is done, my point is that was that the current draft says that shared
> link are supported while they are not, and I didn't put that text in
> that draft, for that matter.
> 
>> We can just state the requirement of P2P link model on any access
>> technology, and leave it there.
> 
> Right thus you agree the draft has to be corrected wherever it talks
> about shared links, to say that only point-to-point links are
> supported, and that shared links are not supported.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --julien
> 
>> On 3/16/11 11:03 AM, "Julien Laganier" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Pierrick,
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM,  <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Julien Laganier <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pierrick,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am confused... Do you disagree that a vanilla IEEE 802.11 isn't a
>>>>> point-to-point link?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No... I was just agreeing  to require p2p link model on the physical links.
>>>> So, 802.11 cannot be used without additional mechanism to achieve a
>>>> point-to-point link. Actually, nothing new with regards to RFC5213.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for clarifying.
>>> 
>>> --julien