IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netext] Comment on draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01

Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp> Thu, 21 July 2011 12:02 UTC

Return-Path: <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
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 A1ED621F8422 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 l5A43Q9E8kCH for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A9B21F8563 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333BB1748221 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:01:34 +0900 (JST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp
Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l9H6j3i7SOfT for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:01:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp [172.19.90.145]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0356F1748177 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:01:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) by ultra.mip.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE141B866 for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:00:16 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <4E28151B.3000602@kddilabs.jp>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:01:31 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [netext] Comment on draft-gundavelli-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-01
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:02:30 -0000

Hi Sri,

I think that SIPTO is very important work and PMIPv6 should support this
feature as you described in your draft.

I have one clarification question on this draft. What's the relationship
with the PMIPv6 flow mobility draft
"draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03", which also defines a spec to
send the traffic selector (i.e., Flow ID Mobility option in the FMI)?

I suppose that these two specs are intended to be used in different
situations, but I would appreciate if you could clarify whether they are
complementary or one can cover the other.

Regards,
-- 
Hidetoshi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email