Re: [netext] #18: Interface marking is needed

"netext issue tracker" <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org> Sun, 24 February 2013 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 8A2FD21F90A2 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:57:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 cZt4Ra--7PdJ for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:57:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B2B21F90A1 for <netext@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:57:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56873 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1U9gl3-0007wn-Cg; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:57:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "netext issue tracker" <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: sarikaya@ieee.org, cjbc@it.uc3m.es
X-Trac-Project: netext
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:57:09 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/netext/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/18#comment:1
Message-ID: <073.5265aee16be3d6678c67b57bbfa17df2@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <058.1ea82dc2a6722fa4b8df6e5bd9ca98e8@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 18
In-Reply-To: <058.1ea82dc2a6722fa4b8df6e5bd9ca98e8@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: sarikaya@ieee.org, cjbc@it.uc3m.es, netext@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] #18: Interface marking is needed
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:57:12 -0000

#18: Interface marking is needed


Comment (by cjbc@it.uc3m.es):

 Hi,

 Apologies for the late reply.

 As I understand it, issue #19 is related to this. In -05, the proposed re-
 use of some of the extensions defined in RFC5648 and RFC6089 are basically
 providing support similar to what you are referring in this issue.

 Please, let me know why the solution described in #19 does not solve your
 concerns.

-- 
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
 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:  PMIP flow mobility  |
--------------------------------+--------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/18#comment:1>
netext <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/>