Re: [netext] #19: Issue in using BID from RFC 5648
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Thu, 11 July 2013 15:00 UTC
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 737D311E81DA for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YTQojv0mmoh6 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF8D11E810D for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061F5CB7CA3; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:00:04 +0200 (CEST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [10.3.251.252] (interdigital.vlan431.asr1.yyz1.gblx.net [208.49.79.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp01.uc3m.es) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51670CC5DA2; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:00:03 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1373554800.4395.58.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:00:00 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcdUP3q=aHb1WrYRs5FZDuD5nsDu9y_coignbzah5DN3_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <058.bcc117d55633f322db3cf82014276600@trac.tools.ietf.org> <073.4df49e3187f1b4826e6f9f79caf5f521@trac.tools.ietf.org> <CAC8QAcdUP3q=aHb1WrYRs5FZDuD5nsDu9y_coignbzah5DN3_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-20008.007
Cc: netext@ietf.org, netext issue tracker <trac+netext@grenache.tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netext] #19: Issue in using BID from RFC 5648
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
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, 11 Jul 2013 15:00:15 -0000
Hi Behcet, Resuming the discussion on this. Hopefully we would be able to progress on this in Berlin. See inline below... On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 12:15 -0600, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > I don't understand why LMA would need the BID? > As I mentioned, the problem is MAGs who only see one interface. > > Another important point you keep missing is that in RFC5648, there is > a clear distinction between the home interface and the visited > interfaces. Can you point me in the spec where that clear distinction is made? I cannot find any protocol field about it. > > When PMIPv6 deviates from RFC 5213 model for the interfaces and start > to treat the different interfaces from the same MN in an integrated > fashion PMIPv6 also has to do the same. > > That's why you need interface marking. By using interface marking MAG > gets to know about multiple interfaces and LMA can differentiate > between the two type of interface registrations. > > BID is superfluous in that there is already flow id in 6089. > I disagree. The BID is a local identifier, assigned and used by the local mobility anchor to identify which entry of the flow mobility cache is used to decide how to route a given flow. Thanks, Carlos > > Regards, > > Behcet > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM, netext issue tracker <trac > +netext@grenache.tools.ietf.org> wrote: > #19: Issue in using BID from RFC 5648 > > > > Comment (by cjbc@it.uc3m.es): > > Hi, > > Apologies for the late reply. > > Let me explain the background of this solution design > decision. The idea > is to avoid defining as many new stuff as possible. It is > true that the > BID, as defined in RFC 5648, is registered by the MN, but > here we are just > trying to re-use the signaling, though obviusly the context > is a bit > different. Here is what -05 says about it: > > "This specification re-uses the extensions defined in > [RFC5648] to > manage multiple registrations, but in the context of Proxy > Mobile > IPv6. The binding cache is therefore extended to include > more than > one proxy care-of addresses and to associate each of them > with a > binding identifier (BID). Note that the BID is a local > identifier, > assigned and used by the local mobility anchor to identify > which > entry of the flow mobility cache is used to decide how to > route a > given flow." > > Also note that this BID in the BC of the LMA is used in > conjunction with > the flow mobility cache, which basically re-uses the > extensions defined in > RFC6089, which is about flow mobility (in the context of > MIPv6). > Therefore, I see that RFC5648 + RFC6089 are about flow > mobility. > > -- > ----------------------------------------+-------------------------------- > Reporter: sarikaya@ieee.org | Owner: > sarikaya@ieee.org > Type: defect | Status: new > Priority: major | Milestone: > milestone1 > Component: pmipv6-flowmob | Version: 2.0 > > Severity: Active WG Document | Resolution: > Keywords: BID, PMIPv6, flow mobility | > > ----------------------------------------+-------------------------------- > > Ticket URL: > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/19#comment:1> > netext <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/> > >
- [netext] #19: Issue in using BID from RFC 5648 netext issue tracker
- Re: [netext] #19: Issue in using BID from RFC 5648 netext issue tracker
- Re: [netext] #19: Issue in using BID from RFC 5648 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [netext] #19: Issue in using BID from RFC 5648 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano