Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links

Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Wed, 16 March 2011 19:29 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 62D8D3A6A3C for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.223, 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 g5ogCnoN0qNE for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:29:45 -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 13C613A69CA for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sgundave@cisco.com; l=1438; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1300303872; x=1301513472; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7QcXiByRnKO0J4cxkTSiYuQcNsDH3ExqNBHW3QkLNXc=; b=hk6aTA1QjvlfTaewdwOgie2x3c4ZbwD6CWvv4dDJpCrNwDa8bEiasLo1 zlzzaJ90GBaiG0DvGg0PjFhnm84FDuN0C8lO0EzKfLU3cjvKnluqLEbmP GnsJiNGiklt0+gKEdCHv+Os8oVki6Kp2Gf1GoIYfVd7BWnCejmQKEz5Uf w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAEutgE2tJV2Y/2dsb2JhbAClOVN3pWecV4VjBIUvhy+DU4Mg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,195,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="667815918"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2011 19:31:11 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2GJUcsn028586; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:31:10 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:31:07 -0700
Received: from 10.32.246.213 ([10.32.246.213]) by xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:31:06 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:31:02 -0800
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com
Message-ID: <C9A65E06.13AF1%sgundave@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links
Thread-Index: AcvkEK8wfav5/9cYFkyEKiL9R5ppvw==
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikjnVkk8-yGzQFNMqQvwCgiAXXULqPnte8JL_2y@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2011 19:31:07.0681 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2937910:01CBE410]
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 19:29:48 -0000

I'm not sure, we can say, we need additional mechanisms in 802.11 to achieve
p2p link model. We are not talking about protocol extensions, its rather
about configuration. From PMIP perspective, we all agree, we need P2P link
model. If some one wants to connect trusted WLAN access networks with PMIP
domain, they can very well do that, as long as they support P2P link model.
We also agreed, we can achieve that with today's 802.11 standards and
today's boxes out there.
 
How they do that, if that's by configuring unique SSID's per MN, unique
VLAN's, send unicast RA's per RFC-6085, set up some L3 tunnels, is beyond
the scope of PMIP. 

We can just state the requirement of P2P link model on any access
technology, and leave it there.

Sri



On 3/16/11 11:03 AM, "Julien Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pierrick,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM,  <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Pierrick,
>>> 
>>> I am confused... Do you disagree that a vanilla IEEE 802.11 isn't a
>>> point-to-point link?
>>> 
>> 
>> No... I was just agreeing  to require p2p link model on the physical links.
>> So, 802.11 cannot be used without additional mechanism to achieve a
>> point-to-point link. Actually, nothing new with regards to RFC5213.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> --julien