Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links
Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Wed, 16 March 2011 00:15 UTC
Return-Path: <sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597FD3A6A55 for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r2lQbtONUGd1 for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B12E3A6A4E for <netext@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=7279; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1300234632; x=1301444232; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jJs5pEPyZZvEPr7zl+z5hYJJsZ6qjGHUcLQISvKFBFQ=; b=G5d57y81Tzw8sBYp6gDERJa3wafEqs4/rHUpD4iZmAe2tTLoM0NtkInQ nGMl0talVDI4pLGu99lLrZL6lXEDX1EfK8LqmT8x4aRM8sImAU01zSuL7 CFWu77NH6uI8ht1s/8VZIOI2Lml2hMK5nLu/C7kDW9h1O+RJ47y0yhTgN k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAJeef02tJXG+/2dsb2JhbACEPqB6VXekcYsjkT6BJ4NFdgSFMIctg1WDHw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,191,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="667518888"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2011 00:17:11 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2G0H9AN006814; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:17:11 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:17:10 -0700
Received: from 10.32.243.120 ([10.32.243.120]) by xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:17:10 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:17:05 -0800
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com, julien.ietf@gmail.com
Message-ID: <C9A54F91.138B8%sgundave@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links
Thread-Index: AcvitTxenbMujdRwpUe3xtq+9Nb7nQAOp6rwAB/n7CU=
In-Reply-To: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C4620190B524@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2011 00:17:10.0713 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E209290:01CBE36F]
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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, 16 Mar 2011 00:15:47 -0000
Hi Pierrick, The sentence can be reworded. Agree, the link model between the MAG and the MN is still a point-to-point link. From 5213 perspective, as long as the point-to-point communication semantics are there between the MN and MAG, we meet the requirement and there is no protocol violation. How that P2P link model is achieved, based a tunnel interface, putting the access point in a unicast mode, are all the possible options. Sri On 3/15/11 1:21 AM, "pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com" <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote: > > Hi Sri, > > If I understand correctly, there is no violation of RFC5213 if all physical > links are p2p. However the proposed text allows the virtual interface to bound > physical shared links. If so, I think we may have the issue described in > section 4.2 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-mn-ar-if-03. > Maybe, the text should be clarified to restrict to physical p2p links. > > BR, > Pierrick > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part >> de Sri Gundavelli >> Envoyé : mardi 15 mars 2011 04:04 >> À : Julien Laganier >> Cc : netext@ietf.org >> Objet : Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links >> >> Julien: >> >> Lets see, what is the violation here ? >> >> - We are stating the logical interface appears to the applications as an >> interface attached to a shared link. For the simple reason, that we have >> multiple neighbors on different network segments attached through >> different >> sub-interface of that logical interface. We don't have a single >> neighbor/MAG. >> >> - "Underneath the logical interface ...", there are sub-interfaces which >> may >> be very well attached to different p2p links. As long as the network has >> the >> semantics to send a RA with PIO, exclusively to this node, no other node >> on >> that access link can receive that Prefix set, we are confirming to 5213 >> link >> model. From any of the MAG's perspective, attached to any of the access >> links, it can still be kept as a p2p link >> >> - Exposing the logical interface as a shared link to the applications on >> the >> *mobile node*, is not violating 5213 principles. The path chosen for a >> packet through a sub-interface can be still a p2p link and the rules of >> link-layer resolution of the peer, or adding l2 headers skipping l2 >> resolution, is still the approach in use. >> >> >> >> >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3/14/11 5:20 PM, "Julien Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sri - >>> >>> 5213 supports only PtP links thus I do not understand how the >>> following resolution resolves anything. Please clarify what is the >>> issue you' re addressing and how this is addressing it. >>> >>> --julien >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> >> wrote: >>>>> #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links >>>> >>>> Clarify the use and >>>>> behavior of the logical interface on PtP links. >>>> >>>> >>>> Folks: Again, reflecting the team's contributions on this topic, the >> authors >>>> of this document have discussed this and resolve it with the following >> text. >>>> The key points we tried to reflect are around that the logical >> interface >>>> appears to the application as a shared link. There were thoughts around >>>> making it appear like a p2p link, given that there are multiple >> neighbors on >>>> each sub interface, this choice appears reasonable. With respect to how >> a >>>> packet is transmitted, is still based on the chosen link model at each >> sub >>>> interface level. Let us know, if you see any issues with it. This is >> proven >>>> based on the multiple implementations from some of the co-authors of >> this >>>> doc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> 6.3. Supported Link models for a logical interface >>>> >>>> The sub-interfaces of a logical interface can be bound to a point-to- >>>> point or a shared link (Example: LTE and WLAN). The logical >>>> interface appears as a shared-link to the applications, and adapts to >>>> the link model of the sub-interface for packet communication. For >>>> example, when transmitting a packet on a sub-interface which is >>>> attached to a p2p link, the transmission conforms to the p2p link >>>> model and when transmitting on a sub-interface attached to a shared >>>> link, the transmission conforms to the shared link model. >>>> >>>> Based on the link to which the sub-interface is attached to, the >>>> layer-2 resolutions may or may not be needed. If the interface is >>>> bound to a P2P link with PPP running, there will not be any link- >>>> layer resolutions in the form of ARP/ND messages. However, if the >>>> interface is bound to a shared link such as Ethernet, there will be >>>> ND resolutions. The logical interface implementation has to maintain >>>> the required link model and the associated state for each sub- >>>> interface. >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/3/11 9:17 AM, "netext issue tracker" >> <trac+netext@trac.tools.ietf.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links >>>> >>>> Clarify the use and >>>>> behavior of the logical interface on PtP links. >>>> >>>> -- >>>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- >> ----- >>>> >>>>> Reporter: basavaraj.patil@Š | Owner: telemaco.melia@Š >>>>> >>>> Type: defect | Status: new >>>>> >>>> Priority: major | Milestone: >>>>> >>>> Component: logical-interface-support | Version: >>>>> >>>> Severity: - | Keywords: >>>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------+------------------------------- >> ----- >>>> >>>>> >>>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/4> >>>> netext >>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/> >>>> >>>> _____________________________________________ >>>>> __ >>>> netext mailing >>>>> list >>>> netext@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> netext mailing list >>>> netext@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netext mailing list >> netext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
- [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to … netext issue tracker
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… pierrick.seite
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… pierrick.seite
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… pierrick.seite
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… Julien Laganier
- Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point… pierrick.seite