Re: [netlmm] [MEXT] Fwd: I-DAction:draft-tsirtsis-logically-separate-lmaha-00.txt

["George Tsirtsis" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Genadi,

I am glad you now understand the issue with the multiple links.
What you suggest, however, is entirely unrealistic.

Below you say:
">  Therefore, IMHO we shall differentiate between cases where overwriting
>  the MIPv6 BCE by PMIPv6 PBU is technically desired and another cases
>  (simultaneous multiple IP links are up) where maintenance of separate
>  PMIPv6/MIPv6 BCEs is desired."

Could you please explain how would the HA/LMA know whether a given MN
can maintain multiple links in parallel or not? And before we start
talking about AAA servers, god-boxes, capabilities negotiation,
telepathy, and other, at best non-universal and at worst non-existent,
system level bells and whistles, please remember that here we are in
the IETF talking about PMIP-MIP interactions.

Let me also repeat my earlier comment about how unthinkable what you
suggest would seem to a casual observer if we were talking about
GTP-MIP interactions. I repeat, would you find acceptable that a GTP
registration overwrites a MIP BCE? under any circumstances?

Finally, I am really perplexed about this. What is so "hot" about
overwriting BCEs? Why so much insistence in the face of overwhelming
evidence that it is a bad idea and when there is a perfectly valid,
bug-free alternative?

Regards and have a nice weekend
George

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Genadi Velev
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi George,
>
>  I appreciate your effort in capturing the problem of HA-LMA collocated
>  implementation. You indeed observe an aspect of the MIPv6-PMIPv6
>  interactions problem that was not considered at the time when the
>  MIP-PMIP interactions I-D was written.  You say in your document:
>
>   "This logic [GV: PMIPv6 PBUs to overwrite state created by PMIPv6 BUs
>    and vice versa] breaks down if one considers MNs that are capable of
>    maintaining more than one link at the same time.  Such capability is
>    common and can be utilised in many different way, while specifically
>    MIPv6 allows for the following behavior:"
>
>  It is obvious that a collocated HA/LMA must have multiple simultaneously
>  active BCEs (MIPv6 and/or PMIPv6) whenever the MN maintains multiple IP
>  links. However, I don't see why generally "BCE Overwriting is Wrong".
>  There are at least 2 cases coming to my mind in which overwriting is OK:
>  case 1) if the MN has a single interface and moves from non-PMIPv6
>  domain to PMIPv6 domain and case 2) if the MN performs a hard-handover
>  (vertical handover) between interfaces. For example, PMIPv6
>  specification describes that the Handoff Indicator (HI) field in the PBU
>  can explicitly tell the HA/LMA that interface handover is performed (HI
>  value of 2). In that case the PMIPv6 PBUs can overwrite the MIPv6 BCE.
>
>  Therefore, IMHO we shall differentiate between cases where overwriting
>  the MIPv6 BCE by PMIPv6 PBU is technically desired and another cases
>  (simultaneous multiple IP links are up) where maintenance of separate
>  PMIPv6/MIPv6 BCEs is desired.
>
>  Genadi
>
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>  > Behalf Of George Tsirtsis
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:49 AM
>  > To: Netlmm
>  > Cc: [e-mail]
>  > Subject: [MEXT] Fwd:
>
>
> > I-DAction:draft-tsirtsis-logically-separate-lmaha-00.txt
>  >
>  > Hi all,
>  >
>  > Krishnan and I put together a draft describing what the expected
>  > behavior of a combined LMA/HA implementation should be. This should
>  > help the discussions around the so called scenario C of the PMIP-MIPv6
>  > interactions draft (draft-giaretta-netlmm-mip-interactions).
>  >
>  > I hope you find the discussion in this draft useful.
>  > Please let us know if you have any comments/questions.
>  >
>  > Regards
>  > George
>  >
>  >
>  > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>  > From:  <[e-mail]>
>  > Date: 2008/3/25
>  > Subject: I-D Action:draft-tsirtsis-logically-separate-lmaha-00.txt
>  > To: [e-mail]
>  >
>  >
>  > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>  > Internet-Drafts directories.
>  >
>  >         Title           : Behavior of Collocated HA/LMA
>  >         Author(s)       : G. Tsirtsis, S. Krishnan
>  >         Filename        :
>  > draft-tsirtsis-logically-separate-lmaha-00.txt
>  >         Pages           : 9
>  >         Date            : 2008-03-25
>  >
>  >  In discussions about PMIPv6-MIPv6 interactions in NETLMM WG, scenario
>  >  C describes the case of collocation of LMA and HA function.  In this
>  >  case a PMIP network emulates the "home link" for MNs using MIPv6.
>  >  This document argues that even when LMA and HA functions are
>  >  Collocated they MUST be treated as logically separate entities.  In
>  >  particular this draft argues that PMIP BCEs MUST NOT overwrite MIPv6
>  >  BCEs and vice versa.
>  >
>  >  A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>  >
>  > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsirtsis-logically-s
>  > eparate-lmaha-00.txt
>  >
>  >  Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>  >  ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>  >
>  >  Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>  >  implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>  >  Internet-Draft.
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  >  I-D-Announce mailing list
>  >  [e-mail]
>  >  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>  >  Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>  >  or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > MEXT mailing list
>  > [e-mail]
>  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
>
> >
>  >
>
>
>  Panasonic R&D Center Germany GmbH
>  63225 Langen, Hessen, Germany
>  Reg: AG Offenbach (Hessen) HRB 33974
>  Managing Director: Thomas Micke
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm