Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-09.txt]

<pierrick.seite@orange.com> Thu, 19 June 2014 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <pierrick.seite@orange.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EFF1A035D for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 01:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gYU5aUv_V5gX for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 01:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias243.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1B251A035A for <netext@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 01:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3BF66190325; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:32:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 0DFB3158052; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:32:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PEXCVZYM12.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::81f:1640:4749:5d13]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:32:21 +0200
From: <pierrick.seite@orange.com>
To: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-09.txt]
Thread-Index: AQHPhys5AbUdXqAtfE2ZhajeqdtPppt3wXeAgABeDrA=
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:32:21 +0000
Message-ID: <12960_1403166742_53A2A016_12960_14955_1_81C77F07008CA24F9783A98CFD706F711425DBD6@PEXCVZYM12.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <1402679783.4063.11.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <53A269DB.6050504@kddilabs.jp>
In-Reply-To: <53A269DB.6050504@kddilabs.jp>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_81C77F07008CA24F9783A98CFD706F711425DBD6PEXCVZYM12corpo_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.6.19.30021
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/uzWYymhNy6RmP8bhVuCgTtvQ3so
Subject: Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-09.txt]
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 19 Jun 2014 08:32:28 -0000

Hi Hidetoshi/all,

Release -08 mandates RFC7077 and the doc was good, IMHO. But, in London, we have decided (group consensus) to reintroduce FMI/FMA to avoid dependency between RFC. Now, it's true that introducing 2 options for message format makes the solution more complex for little added-value (no major differences between messages)... So, maybe the question is "is it good or bad to have RFC dependency?" then update the draft according the answer...

Pierrick

De : netext [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Hidetoshi Yokota
Envoyé : jeudi 19 juin 2014 06:41
À : netext@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [netext] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-09.txt]

Hello Carlos,

Thanks for updating the draft.
I have a couple of questions and comments:

o In Section 3.2.1, which is the shared prefix case, there is no message exchange between the LMA and MAG, so there is no flow information on the MAG side. It should work in the sense of routing, but if, for example, each flow has a specific QoS, the MAG should also need to know which flow should go on which QoS path especially for upstream traffic towards the LMA. Or, the MAG may want to send a trigger for flow mobility to the MN (the exact mechanism is out of scope).  Some mobility signaling should be there, too.

o In Section 3.3, FMI/FMA are revived considering the case where UPN is not supported, but they convey very little information. There is no special information that cannot be conveyed by the existing messages. Since RFC7077 is now a proposed standard, I cannot think of a situation where the UPN/UPA are not supported, nevertheless FMI/FMA are supported. It rather seems more natural to mandate the support of RFC7077 or to mandate FMI/FMA for all flow mobility operations.
Also, when compared with UPN/UPA case in Figure 4, FMI/FMA seem to convey different set of parameters in Figure 7. Could you clarify it a little bit more please?

o In Section 3.3, just above Figure 7, there is a description: "..., and the type of flow mobility operation (add flow)", but does RFC6089 define such an operation code? This kind of operation should also be defined in the draft.

Regards,


--

Hidetoshi Yokota



KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.

e-mail:yokota@kddilabs.jp<mailto:e-mail:yokota@kddilabs.jp>

(2014/06/14 2:16), Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:

Hi,



As agreed in London, I've updated the flow mobility draft to include

also the FMI/FMA signaling option (in addition to the use of Update

Notifications). The draft also includes a mechanism to allow selecting

which one of the two signaling mechanisms to use.



In my personal opinion, it'd be much cleaner and simpler to just specify

one signaling mechanism, but this is up to the WG to decide.



Comments, reviews and discussion on this new revision would be welcome.

Hopefully we could get at least a new revision before Toronto.



Thanks,



Carlos




_______________________________________________

netext mailing list

netext@ietf.org<mailto:netext@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.