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

[<[e-mail]>]

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Julien Laganier [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mercredi 16 mars 2011 19:31
> À : SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point links
> 
> 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.  

> --julien
> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM,  <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > agreed
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Sri Gundavelli [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Envoyé : mercredi 16 mars 2011 02:17
> >> À : SEITE Pierrick RD-RESA-REN; [e-mail]
> >> Cc : [e-mail]
> >> Objet : Re: [netext] #4: Logical interface support: Point to point
> links
> >>
> >> 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, "[e-mail]"
> >> <[e-mail]> 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 : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la
> >> part
> >> >> de Sri Gundavelli
> >> >> Envoyé : mardi 15 mars 2011 04:04
> >> >> À : Julien Laganier
> >> >> Cc : [e-mail]
> >> >> 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" <[e-mail]> 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
> <[e-mail]>
> >> >> 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"
> >> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> >>>> 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
> >> >>>> [e-mail]
> >> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>> netext mailing list
> >> >>>> [e-mail]
> >> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >> >>>>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> netext mailing list
> >> >> [e-mail]
> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> >
> >