[Netext] Review of the Multihoming PS I-D

Hi Rajeev

I just had a quick look on your draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-koodli-flow-handover-00.txt.
It is great, and I also would appreciate you if you can review
my draft 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xia-netext-flow-binding-00.txt
which tried to solve the same problems.

Just I discussed with Gerardo in the mailing list
who I assume  is also working on 3GPP 23.861,
the motivation of flowing binding is to make full use of
precious air resource.  IMO, MAGs have more information
on the usage of air interface than LMA.

Thus, relating to your draft, my points are
1) In most case, MAGs initiate flow binding, which is
    consistent with MN's behavior in Mobile IPv6 flow binding.
2)T-MAG may be involved in flowing binding decision.
   S-MAG request offloading some traffic to T-MAG which
   has right to decide on it's own discretion.
3)Mostly your draft deal with downstreams redirection,
  while upstreams traffic treatment need more consideration.

BR
Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli at starentnetworks.com>
To: <netext at mail.mobileip.jp>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Netext] Review of the Multihoming PS I-D

Hi,

> IMO, the flow binding( or flow handover/flow mobility)
> requirement is not neccessarily tied to address configuration
> model of mobile nodes.
>
> Multiple interface may or may not shared HNP.

My point is that when you move a flow (say belonging to HNP-1) from one 
interface to another (which has, say HNP-2), you can achieve flow mobility. 
In that sense you share HNP-1 across the two interfaces.

Regards,

-Rajeev

>
> BR
> Frank
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli at starentnetworks.com>
> To: <netext at mail.mobileip.jp>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Netext] Review of the Multihoming PS I-D
>
>
>
> Hello folks,
>
> If we allow the same HNP across multiple interfaces (as a form of
> multihoming), then moving one or more flows would be a
> natural extension I
> think. At least, that's my thinking when writing
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-koodli-flow-handover
> -00.txt last
> year.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rajeev
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp
> > [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] On Behalf Of Frank Xia
> > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:42 AM
> > To: Giaretta, Gerardo; cjbc at it.uc3m.es; Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
> > Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp;
> > Mohana.Jeyatharan at sg.panasonic.com;
> Telemaco.Melia at alcatel-lucent.com
> > Subject: Re: [Netext] Review of the Multihoming PS I-D
> >
> > Hi Gerardo
> >
> > I know there is official requirement from 3GPP, and I am  not
> > offically  asked  to push in IETF either  :-).
> >
> > >From business perspective,  what operators care is how
> > to make full use of their scarce air resource.
> > This is one of main motivation to have dual mode terminals
> > with 3GPP and WiFi (you can buy one from T-Mobile :-) ).
> >
> > When the dual mode terminal moves  home where WLAN access is
> > available,  it prefer offloading some low QoS service from
> > 3GPP to WiFi.  At the same time, high QoS service still
> > remains in 3GPP.
> >
> > BR
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" <gerardog at qualcomm.com>
> > To: "Frank Xia" <xiayangsong at huawei.com>; <cjbc at it.uc3m.es>;
> > <Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>
> > Cc: <netext at mail.mobileip.jp>; <Mohana.Jeyatharan at sg.panasonic.com>;
> > <Telemaco.Melia at alcatel-lucent.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 9:56 AM
> > Subject: RE: [Netext] Review of the Multihoming PS I-D
> >
> >
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > I am happy if Huawei wants you to push this in the IETF, I
> > hope you can make it :-)
> >
> > I wanted just to provide the indication that there is not any
> > official requirement from 3GPP.
> >
> > We can then discuss about whatever business can drive this
> > (what radios do you have in mind when you talk about
> > multihoming and flow mobility for PMIP?).
> >
> > Gerardo
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Frank Xia [mailto:xiayangsong at huawei.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:51 AM
> > > To: Giaretta, Gerardo; cjbc at it.uc3m.es; Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
> > > Cc: netext at mail.mobileip.jp; Mohana.Jeyatharan at sg.panasonic.com;
> > > Telemaco.Melia at alcatel-lucent.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Netext] Review of the Multihoming PS I-D
> > >
> > > Hi All
> > >
> > > My 3GPP colleagues also suggested me  pushing in  IETF community.
> > > If we talk about 3GPP requirment, there is even no specific PMIPv6
> > > multi-homing requirement.
> > >
> > > My point is business driving technical employment.
> > > IMO, flow mobility is  clearly required in PMIP deployment
> > environment.
> > >
> > > BR
> > > Frank
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" <gerardog at qualcomm.com>
> > > To: <cjbc at it.uc3m.es>; <Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>
> > > Cc: <netext at mail.mobileip.jp>;
> <Mohana.Jeyatharan at sg.panasonic.com>;
> > > <Telemaco.Melia at alcatel-lucent.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:16 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Netext] Review of the Multihoming PS I-D
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > To clarify flow mobility is not a requirement for PMIPv6
> > right now in
> > > 3GPP.
> > > There is a study item ongoing but 3GPP has not yet decided
> > that flow
> > > mobility is needed for PMIPv6.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Gerardo
> > > (from Budapest, 3GPP SA2 meeting)
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp
> > > > [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp]
> > > > On Behalf Of Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:21 AM
> > > > To: Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
> > > > Cc: Mohana.Jeyatharan at sg.panasonic.com;
> > > > Telemaco.Melia at alcatel-lucent.com;
> > > > netext at mail.mobileip.jp
> > > > Subject: Re: [Netext] Review of the Multihoming PS I-D
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > One question: flow mobility seems to be an interesting
> > feature that
> > > > is a requirement from 3GPP, it is related with
> > multihoming but it is
> > > > not strictly a multihoming isse, right? I mean, multihoming
> > > > extensions would likely make easier to support flow
> mobility, but
> > > > would probably require additional mechanisms. How do we capture
> > > > this? I'm not sure the multihoming PS is the right place
> > for that,
> > > > maybe the multihoming PS can point out that, but we need
> > an explicit
> > > > document (and charter item) for dealing with flow mobility.
> > > > What
> > > > do others think?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > > El mi?, 18-02-2009 a las 21:39 +0100, Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
> > > > escribi?:
> > > > > It may be of interest in the context of multihoming to
> > consider moving
> > > > > a flow from one interface to another. A flow which is
> > associated with
> > > > > an interface on the MN may be moved to another
> > interface in the case
> > > > > of a multihomed host for various reasons. This may be
> > viewed as a
> > > > > handover as well from the flow perspective. Multihoming
> > enables the
> > > > > possibility to move flows between interfaces. I think
> > we could keep
> > > > > this in the context of the multihoming discussion if there is
> > > > > consensus
> > > > > on
> > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Raj
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/17/09 1:51 AM, "ext Mohana Jeyatharan"
> > > > > <Mohana.Jeyatharan at sg.panasonic.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Hidetoshi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In Multihoming PS ID, there are some handoff
> > optimization scenarios
> > > > involved.
> > > > > > For example optmizing the handoff of a certain
> > interface by means of
> > > > > > another, and achieving flow mobility via another
> > interface during
> > > > > > disconnection. These events are triggered due to handoff or
> > > > > > disconnection, but the scenarios are associated with
> > multihoming.
> > > > > > That is being able to receive a flow that is usually
> > destined to an
> > > > > > interface via another "connected" interface. This is
> > where these
> > > > > > scenarios are different from normal handoff and more tied to
> > > > > > multihoming.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I agree that these are also tied with
> > handoff and some
> > > > > > confusion is there. Anyway, we are planning to revise the
> > > > > > multihoming PS draft and are thinking of focusing on the
> > > > > > disconnection scenario, handoff optimization as less
> > focus scenarios
> > > > > > and
> > > > focus on scenarios that are cateogorized by Raj.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BR,
> > > > > > Mohana
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Hidetoshi Yokota [mailto:yokota at kddilabs.jp]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:42 PM
> > > > > > To: Mohana Jeyatharan
> > > > > > Cc: Domagoj Premec; ext MELIA TELEMACO; Marco Liebsch;
> > > > > > netext at mail.mobileip.jp; Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Netext] Review of the Multihoming PS I-D
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mohana and all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think your scenario is viable, but we should probably more
> > > > > > carefully clarify the difference between multihoming
> > and handover.
> > > > > > Assigning the same address to different interfaces on
> > the MN for a
> > > > > > sufficiently long time sounds like multihoming;
> > however, if this
> > > > > > situation holds only for a short period of time for
> > MN's movement or
> > > > > > fail over or for whatever reason, that sounds like
> > handover. This
> > > > > > difference would affect the behavior of the LMA and MAG(s).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In Section 2 of the Multihoming PS document, Issues
> related to
> > > > > > handoff performance and those related to flow
> > mobility during sudden
> > > > > > disconnection appear to be categorized into handover.
> > If all agree
> > > > > > that these issues should also be included in
> > multihoming, that's
> > > > > > fine. I would just like to make sure of it first of all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Hidetoshi
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > NetExt mailing list
> > > > > NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> > > > > http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> > > > --
> > > >  Carlos Jes?s Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
> > > >  GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >   WEEDEV 2009: 2nd Workshop on Experimental Evaluation and
> > > >         Deployment Experiences on Vehicular networks
> > > >                   http://www.weedev.org/
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NetExt mailing list
> > > NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> > > http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NetExt mailing list
> > NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> > http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetExt mailing list
> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
>
>

_______________________________________________
NetExt mailing list
NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext 