Re: [netlmm] Local routing at the MAG
Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com> Tue, 08 July 2008 04:31 UTC
Return-Path: <netlmm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netlmm-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-netlmm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB393A659B; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
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 E46BF28C0EB for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.773, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 hthiPf6A1RTN for <netlmm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web84305.mail.re1.yahoo.com (web84305.mail.re1.yahoo.com [69.147.74.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A1B1028C0CF for <netlmm@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 21:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 64240 invoked by uid 60001); 8 Jul 2008 04:31:49 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=EEr8mCpbH29aO/YmHpiDE3sI4w93tyUzXPPRgABC+KdcQma3HtsJIza5y8kDJd1+IUijwDCniVpXUBM3ZeI0vxqGuhpaCFPcaJsacLCJtl5LKZWl3sJ/tesoEjFJ3aL+FRQIfgZ9xo31HHfBZ+e4qqJSvngnYi9q4cHH5OpSCJE=;
Received: from [71.252.164.196] by web84305.mail.re1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:31:49 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/975.45 YahooMailWebService/0.7.199
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:31:49 -0700
From: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
To: Vijay Devarapalli <vijay@wichorus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <156058.53999.qm@web84305.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Cc: netlmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netlmm] Local routing at the MAG
X-BeenThere: netlmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0610024930=="
Sender: netlmm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: netlmm-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Vijay, This is the simplest case of PMIP6 RO. We identified it as Case #1 (also Case #2 which is a very similar case) in draft-qin-netlmm-pmipro-00. The solution is as you said in the base draft. Regards, Behcet ----- Original Message ---- From: Vijay Devarapalli <vijay@wichorus.com> To: "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com>; kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com Cc: netlmm@ietf.org Sent: Monday, July 7, 2008 4:16:24 PM Subject: [netlmm] Local routing at the MAG Hi Rajeev, Kuntal, I looked at draft-koodli-netlmm-local-forwarding. I think it is a good idea. The PMIPv6 base specification already allows a MAG to optimize the traffic when it figures out that both mobile nodes are attached to it. See section 6.10.3 of draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-18.txt. However, this decision is based on local policy on the MAG. The base PMIPv6 document also says This decision of path optimization SHOULD be based on the policy configured on the mobile access gateway, but enforced by the mobile node's local mobility anchor. The specific details on how this is achieved are beyond of the scope of this document. I think draft-koodli-netlmm-local-forwarding could be the out-of-scope mechanism referred to in the base document. Also, draft-koodli-netlmm-local-forwarding should refer to section 6.10.3 of the base spec. I have a few questions on the draft. Why does the LMA have to authorize local routing per-pair of mobile nodes? Can't it tell the MAG to apply local routing whenever possible? Would it make sense to also allow the MAG to request the LMA for local routing authorization when it detects a flow between two mobile nodes attached to it? Does the local forwarding have to be triggered by the LMA always? Section 5.1 says MAY contain the remote MAG IPv6 address option, which is identical to the HNP option except for Prefix Length equal to 128 bits. What indicates the presence of the remote (or peer) MAG IP address in the LFRQ message? You might need a flag in the reserved field. Finally, have you guys considered using the Generic Signaling message (or the generic notification message as it was called before) instead of defining a new mobility header message? Vijay _______________________________________________ netlmm mailing list netlmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
_______________________________________________ netlmm mailing list netlmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
- Re: [netlmm] Local routing at the MAG Behcet Sarikaya
- [netlmm] Local routing at the MAG Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: [netlmm] Local routing at the MAG Koodli, Rajeev