Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Mon, 09 August 2010 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 CC0053A6850 for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 wSYPoUpejm7S for <netext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD423A6968 for <netext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [163.117.139.72] (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104E9BE72C3; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:06:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
In-Reply-To: <137276.20139.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <C883045B.46FF8%sgundave@cisco.com> <137276.20139.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-XQNb6pJRjYluTil4v6eb"
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:08:12 +0200
Message-ID: <1281370092.2934.61.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.2
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.0.0.1038-17560.000
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/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: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:06:16 -0000

On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 08:33 -0700, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Sri,
>   That is not really the point.
> 
> The point is that Flow Identification Mobility Option
> defined in draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-06
> has a sub-option called 
> Traffic Selector sub-option
> 
> which can carry the TS.
> 
> This is to Carlos: 
> Why are we reinventing the wheel? The sub-option has already been defined there 
> (in Section 
> 
> 4.2.1.4.)!

We are not reinventing. We are reusing. It is the same option. We could
even not include the format in the next revision of the flow mobility
draft. The only goal of putting them it was to provide some context in
the -00 version of the draft and to mention that the binary formats
defined in draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts could be used.

Carlos

> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
> > To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>; cjbc@it.uc3m.es
> > Cc: netext@ietf.org
> > Sent: Sat, August 7, 2010 2:38:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: [netext] Needs of traffic spec. on MAG?
> > 
> > Hi Behcet:
> > 
> > >> You are right, we have to leverage the work done in  MEXT. The  Traffic
> > >> Selectors for IPv4 and IPv6 flows can be  from the mext binary TS  work. I
> > >> think, Carlos did provide the  TS option with a opaque field for  including
> > >> the filter. 
> > > 
> > > Current definition is only allowing TS like binary TS of  George to be used.
> > > There could be others like language based flow  descriptions proposed in the
> > > past. Is this reusing mext work?
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Sure. Currently, as you say, George's IPv4 and IPv6 binary  traffic selectors
> > are referenced as traffic selectors. However, Carlos chose  a variable length
> > TS field, so in future we can write Traffic Selectors in  English, Spanish,
> > Turkish ... So, if you have one, just write that selector  in your favorite
> > metalanguage and carlos can point to  that.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Sri
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>       

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67