Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04
Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 19 September 2012 20:07 UTC
Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.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 1DDA421E80A7 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y5YVM7Lr8mH3 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E58921E8034 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oagn5 with SMTP id n5so978265oag.31 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iW7jNgFl1tZl8/qeKtXR4m9q7fx5O/GEv/1QqKh4sNw=; b=womHMEwlOefZnbLMZUU4+1C6RyM4Rqd9JsJcVIrJCVYz+twf0sziZ7xPINyd6OptqN N3SE1KaN+Plp59jRz5cCbf+iQTCIWs6zU2hsQFL2oGHaK2Ve3O2lGM3HHqFlYd8ZWBYB Q1qewE7uKoYs/h1oRDwRd42BYlaFUkEwoLWsqYZJkolAdpM5xd3gyA40bEUaCeqLL3sO fmoWRQ1NxiiTG1KG/iXyUUhSBru3FFaODPvt46YIkMxq5rVF06WVXl6eYFO5GxW5ykm3 fhgsOetirXjpvKd1x6i/JaG+LaosDkidZE5sQbRloo2XB0vqKGurcSMqnQPL6K552/gi e6Bg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.52.3 with SMTP id p3mr2446126obo.56.1348085229597; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.17.37 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1347990352.18353.115.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
References: <CAC8QAcegrZifKxbQ=wn4hEZYXutGLPg6Mtmqxd6=edioiT53Qg@mail.gmail.com> <1347990352.18353.115.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:07:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAccZPC8sLaoV1xG7hxefCZQn0Cbr4fU=qSPdggbuKpT1QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:07:20 -0000
Hi Carlos, Please see inline. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote: > Ni Behcet, all, > > Again, apologies for the late reply. > > Thanks for your comments and questions. Please find some comments inline > below. > > On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 16:13 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> Hi Carlos, >> >> I have questions on Section 3.2.1. on MN sharing a common set of >> prefixes on all MAGs. >> >> I don't understand why this is related to flow mobility but not prefix >> allocation policy. You did not answer this one. >> In Fig. 2, you consider flow Y to pref1::mn1 on if2 >> >> and then you move flow Y to if1. I am confused about the figure. How >> come pref1::mn1 and pref1::mn1 stays the same? What is mn1? Is it the >> iid? > > mn1 are the 128-N rightmost bits of the MN1 address, where N is the > prefix length. Typically mn1 would correspond to the iid. > >> Do you assume that both if1 and if2 have the same iid? How could this >> be possible? Secondly you did not mention this assumption. > > The document does not go into the details of whether if1 and if2 have > the same iid or not. The assumptions on the MN side are the following: > > "It is > assumed that the mobile node IP layer interface can simultaneously > and/or sequentially attach to multiple MAGs, possibly over multiple > media. One form to achieve this multiple attachment is described in > [I-D.ietf-netext-logical-interface-support], which allows the mobile > node supporting traffic flows on different physical interfaces > regardless of the assigned prefixes on those physical interfaces." > > You can also check Section 6 on MN considerations. > Can I say that pref1::mn1 can not be the same? This is based on your reply and the fact that you did not make any assumption/requirement on this, so you need to modify the figure accordingly. >> >> I think that if2 should be referred to as mn2 then the situation will >> be clear, i.e. moving flows between two different interfaces with >> different addresses, so this case is not any different than the cases >> you have in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. > > The point is to address (in Section 3.2.1) a different scenario in which > the same prefix (or set of prefixes) is assigned to different physical > interfaces. This is possible, so it should be considered. > Yes but the problem is not any different than when different prefixes are assigned, so what is the big deal that requires a different section which happens to be the first section (3.2.1)? >> >> You explain in this section that some flow mobility update action (?) >> happens in both LMA and MN and the flow is magically moved. Even if we >> assume what you have is correct this case does not deserve any mention >> in the draft, i.e. there is no observable action to specify. > > It is needed to specify how to ensure that different physical interfaces > of the same MN get assigned the same prefix (or set of prefixes). Please see above. If this case is no different than the cases in 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 then why? Regards, Behcet
- [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-04 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano