Re: [netlmm] FW: a qtn on pmipv6 multi-homing

Sam Jeyaseelan <Sam.Jeyaseelan@jdsu.com> Mon, 07 June 2010 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <Sam.Jeyaseelan@jdsu.com>
X-Original-To: netlmm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netlmm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E003A6826 for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.841
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.841 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.758, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 SnhXw5mqQ65c for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com (exprod7og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.171]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 030043A67E6 for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([209.36.247.244]) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTA1w00bf4CMdYikOfENPAVD5gaRiZfuh@postini.com; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:21:08 PDT
Received: from milexhtca2.ds.jdsu.net ([10.75.2.122]) by Outbound1.jdsu.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:16:41 -0700
Received: from MILEXCH2.ds.jdsu.net ([fe80::a071:342f:fdf0:bb53]) by milexhtca2.ds.jdsu.net ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:16:40 -0700
From: Sam Jeyaseelan <Sam.Jeyaseelan@jdsu.com>
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>, "netlmm@ietf.org" <netlmm@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:16:39 -0700
Thread-Topic: [netlmm] FW: a qtn on pmipv6 multi-homing
Thread-Index: AQHLBoQld/yHxJoSq06HM8VWqUlrP5J3CVmMgAADEhqAAADrLA==
Message-ID: <F36C6302717C59478890A7775A4C8CC72542ADB1C2@MILEXCH2.ds.jdsu.net>
References: <F36C6302717C59478890A7775A4C8CC72542ADB1C1@MILEXCH2.ds.jdsu.net>, <C832B9DB.432EB%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C832B9DB.432EB%sgundave@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2010 22:16:41.0542 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B20DE60:01CB068F]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] FW: a qtn on pmipv6 multi-homing
X-BeenThere: netlmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETLMM working group discussion list <netlmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netlmm>
List-Post: <mailto:netlmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>, <mailto:netlmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:21:08 -0000

thanks Sri for ur reply.

But the benefit of mulioming is potentially greater survivevability of the session in the presence of network failures. For example, my "ip processor" has two ip addresses, they are namely known as primary ip addr and secondary ip addr. If the primary ip link goes down, then the secondary ip link will carry the traffic. In this way, the taffic is never lost.

Section 5.4 is titled as "Multihoming Support",  but i could not see any benefit of actual multihoming features. Because as per your reply, the moble node establishes two independent sessions, one over LTE and the other one over WIFI. 

I am bit confused with the keyword "multihoming in the 5.4".

 -Sam

 4G R&D engineer
 JDSU



________________________________________
From: Sri Gundavelli [sgundave@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:59 PM
To: Sam Jeyaseelan; netlmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netlmm] FW: a qtn on pmipv6 multi-homing

> In this paragraph, Does multiple-interface mean multiple
> Proxy-care-of-addressess? Would someone throw some light on this?


A mobile node with multiple interfaces, lets say LTE and WIFI, attaches to
two different access networks one over LTE to MAG-1 and the other over WiFI
to MAG-2. In this case, there would be two Proxy Care-of Addresses, two MIP
tunnels and two MIP sessions/BCE's. Each of those MAG's will have security
relation to the LMA/PGW.

Sri




On 6/7/10 2:48 PM, "Sam Jeyaseelan" <Sam.Jeyaseelan@jdsu.com> wrote:

> forwarding to the correct forum....( i guess)..
>
> ________________________________________
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sam
> Jeyaseelan [Sam.Jeyaseelan@jdsu.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:58 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: a qtn on pmipv6 multi-homing
>
> As per the section 5.4 from rfc 5213:
>      ...
>      ...
>      When a mobile node connects to a Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain through
>       multiple interfaces for simultaneous access, the local mobility
>       anchor MUST allocate a mobility session for each of the attached
>       interfaces.  Each mobility session should be managed under a
>       separate Binding Cache entry and with its own lifetime.
>
> In this paragraph, Does multiple-interface mean multiple
> Proxy-care-of-addressess?
> Would someone throw some light on this?
>
> thanks in advance.
>
> -Sam
>
> 4G R&D engineer
> JDSU
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm