Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating from -07 to -08
Takako Sanda <sanda.takako@jp.panasonic.com> Mon, 19 November 2007 02:21 UTC
Return-path: <nsis-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ItwGq-0007la-Eb; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:21:56 -0500
Received: from nsis by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ItwGp-0007iv-I7 for nsis-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:21:55 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ItwGp-0007hC-5s for nsis@ietf.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:21:55 -0500
Received: from smtp.mei.co.jp ([133.183.100.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ItwGj-0000tT-51 for nsis@ietf.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:21:55 -0500
Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (dodgers.mei.co.jp [157.8.1.150]) by smtp.mei.co.jp (8.12.11.20060614/3.7W/kc-maile11) with ESMTP id lAJ2LZ30004061; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:21:35 +0900 (JST)
Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlx2) with ESMTP id lAJ2LaP09104; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:21:36 +0900 (JST)
Received: from epochmail.jp.panasonic.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/redsox) with ESMTP id lAJ2Lat06073; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:21:36 +0900 (JST)
Received: by epochmail.jp.panasonic.com (8.12.11.20060308/3.7W/soml28) id lAJ2LZhh024420; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:21:35 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [10.68.136.102] by soml28.jp.panasonic.com (8.12.11.20060308/3.7W) with ESMTP id lAJ2LUA1024288; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:21:30 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:23:39 +0900
From: Takako Sanda <sanda.takako@jp.panasonic.com>
To: Roland Bless <bless@tm.uka.de>
Subject: Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating from -07 to -08
In-Reply-To: <473D7726.1070504@tm.uka.de>
References: <473D05AF.9050507@sg.panasonic.com> <473D7726.1070504@tm.uka.de>
Message-Id: <20071119111153.A9A6.SANDA.TAKAKO@jp.panasonic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.24.02 [ja]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9cc83ac38bbbabacbf00f656311dd8d8
Cc: Hong Cheng <hong.cheng@sg.panasonic.com>, "nsis@ietf.org" <nsis@ietf.org>, Jukka MJ Manner <jmanner@cs.Helsinki.FI>
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nsis-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Roland, Thank you for the useful comments. As you say, it will be good to describe all of four cases in the draft: 1.) MN is sender, sender-initiated reservation 2.) MN is sender, receiver-initiated reservation 3.) MN is receiver, sender-initiated reservation 4.) MN is receiver, receiver-initiated reservation But as submission deadline is today, I do not think we can write these scenarios in -08. Therefore, I will only adopt all of your other comments for -08, and add other scenarios for -09 soon after coming IETF meeting. Is this fine? cheers, Takako On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:55:34 +0100 Roland Bless <bless@tm.uka.de> wrote: > Hi Hong, Takako and all, > > we were writing up another e-mail, but I guess your analysis is > mostly correct. I'll try to summarize our (Martin and I) comments > as follows: > > We (Martin an I) have some major comments about the draft and are > willing to contribute to it. > First, we find that we basically should distinguish four cases: > 1.) MN is sender, sender-initiated reservation > 2.) MN is sender, receiver-initiated reservation > 3.) MN is receiver, sender-initiated reservation > 4.) MN is receiver, receiver-initiated reservation > > It seems that only case 1.) is currently discussed in section 4 > and we think it would be good to systematically discuss > the other cases, too. > > In case that MobileIPv6 is used it boils down to > the following cases as Hong described already. We assume > that the MN changes its address and the we distinguish > two flows: > cases 1.)+2.) (MN-Sender) f_o: old-CoA -> CN, f_n: new-CoA -> CN > cases 3.)+4.) (MN-Receiver) f_o: CN -> old-CoA, f_n: CN -> new-CoA > > Case > 1.) > - MN changes its IP address, obtains new-CoA > - QoS NSLP must become aware of the handover, so that the > - MN simply initiates a new RESERVE for the new flow f_n > > 2.) > - MN changes its IP address, obtains new-CoA > - QoS NSLP must become aware of the handover, so that the > - MN initiates a new QUERY(RESERVE-INIT) for the new flow f_n > > 3.) > - MN changes its IP address, obtains new-CoA > - MN performs mobility management signaling, i.e. binding update > to the CN. > - CN becomes aware of the handover (this is the important part) > so that the NSLP can initiate a new RESERVE. > 4.) > - MN changes its IP address, obtains new-CoA > - MN performs mobility management signaling, i.e. binding update > to the CN. > - CN gets aware of the handover, NSLP sends a new > QUERY > > The important part for all four cases is that > the QoS NSLP becomes aware of the handover. There > are several possibilities for the trigger, but I > think we should use a new GIST API primitive for > the notification (but probably as mobility extension > of GIST not within the current proposed draft). > You wrote that GIST will trigger the NSLP, > but I don't think that there is currently such > a possibility: > new binding update actually changes an existing flow > f_o into the new f_n. So the only existing primitive > would be to indicate > NetworkNotification(QoS-NSLP, MRI(f_o), Routing-Status-Change=Bad) > for the old flow. But we need to get the new MRI > in order to send the NSLP message. One problem is that > GIST doesn't have any state for the new flow f_n. > So I would propose to have a new NetworkNotificationType, > like MRI change: > NetworkNotification(QoS-NSLP, MRI(f_o), MRI(f_n)) > The problem is, however, that an updated IP address > (due to mobility management) may affect several GIST > flows. > > An alternative would be a trigger caused by the > application itself, e.g., due to application level > signaling. It would be similar to the fact that > we need such a trigger anyway for receiver-initiated > reservations in order to let the sender issue an initial > Query. I guess we need to support both possibilities > for cross layer info. > > Concerning your mentioned option of directly sending > a NOTIFY to the other end: that's also an alternative > that I discussed with Martin. Our proposed EST-MRM > would probably enable a node to do so, i.e., a NOTIFY > indicating a handover event could be sent directly > to the other end. > > Now for some further comments to the draft: > > Further comments on section 4.2: > I propose to change the name of "State Update" > at least to "Localized State Update", because > my intuitive understanding of State Update is > that is denotes the process to update the flow's state > along the whole path. > > With respect to section 4.2.1 we want to remark that > usually the main difference between mobility/handover > scenarios and re-routing as describe in appendix A is: > in the basic mobility scenario the MRI changes: the > MN gets a new care-of-address and thus we have a new flow > (we denote this as f_n). In contrast to this, a re-routing > by route changes will usually not lead to a change of > the MRI. So normally only the CRN can determine at > NSLP level that a handover happened by detecting two > different MRIs (f_o=old flow and f_n=new flow) belonging > to the same SID. GIST does not really care about the SID, > so this relation must be handled at the NSLP > level. > > Furthermore, I would propose to rephrase the last > paragraph of section 4.2.3 as QoS NSLP does not allow > to sent RESERVEs towards the QNI. Thus, there is no > option to do it differently. > > Best regards, > Roland and Martin > > Hong Cheng wrote: > > Hi Roland and Jukka, > > > > This seems like some interesting discussion that should be used to > > update the MIP operation part in the draft. > > > > Based on the description, I don't think a NOTIFY from MN is necessary > > when the other end (CN or HA) is a QNE. > > > > When MN is the Data Sender, it should work this way: > > - MN changes its IP addr, e.g. obtain a new-CoA; > > - MN sends a QUERY(RESERVE-INIT)towards the CN/HA with the new MRI (if > > it's QNR); or > > - MN sends a RESERVE towards the CN with the new MRI (if it's QNI) > > > > When MN is the Data Receiver, and the CN/HA is a QNE, it should work > > this way: > > - MN changes its IP addr, e.g. obtain a new-CoA; > > - MN does Mobility Management signaling to inform CN/HA of new-CoA > > (otherwise data path would not change, remember CN/HA is the data sender); > > - CN/HA is triggered by GIST to send QUERY towards MN using new MRI; > > - MN sends RESPONSE (if it's QNR) or RESERVE (if it's QNI); and > > - CN/HA sends RESERVE if it is QNI. > > In the above step 3, CN/HA sends QUERY instead of RESERVE directly(if > > CN/HA is QNI) because the path condition may change as MN changes > > location (as indicated in your earlier email, WiFi and WiMAX may > > provides different throughput). However, if time is a concern, CN/HA can > > always use back the old QSPEC for a direct RESERVE first. > > > > The situation will become a bit more interesting when the CN/HA is not > > QNE. In this case, how the MN does the update worth some discussion. > > > > If MN is the Data Sender, same operation as above should be able to work. > > > > If MN is the Data Receiver, there are problems in signaling as indicated > > in Roland's email, especially when we assume the routing is asymmetric. > > There are two possible ways: > > - If MN knows the QNI/QNR addr, it can send a NOTIFY/QUERY directly to > > it. However, in the current QoS NSLP spec, there is no way for the MN to > > know that info. Should we fix this, e.g. as a special mobility/proxy > > INFO-Element? > > - Get some help from the CN/HA (the data sender). Possibly to > > encapsulate the NOTIFY to CN/HA, and get them to send it via Data Path. > > This is like sending a special PING to the CN/HA. > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Roland Bless wrote: > >> Hi Jukka, > >> > >> [I'm taking this to the list now...] > >> > >> Jukka MJ Manner wrote: > >>> I think we are talking about the same thing. The main point is that if IP > >>> addresses change, the MRI is invalidated, and the QNI must then, in one > >>> way or another be notified. There must be (otherwise nothing works) some > >>> mobility signaling where the QNI gets to know the new IP of the MN, and > >>> can then reissue a RESERVE with a new MRI. > >> Ok, however, I believe that your proposed solution doesn't work: > >> you proposed to send a NOTIFY towards the CN. This will require usage > >> of the new flow's MRI and the resulting GIST Query must be sent in > >> _upstream_ direction, i.e., PC-MRI(CN->MN-newCoA, D-Flag=1) - upstream. > >> Now there is the problem of choosing the correct encapsulation for the > >> Query: only _upstream_ Q-mode encapsulation would be an option, but this > >> is not appropriate to use in this case due to its limited applicability > >> to certain environments. Even if the MN could send the NOTIFY to its > >> new access router (QNE4 below), there is no routing state installed yet > >> in upstream direction in QNE4, i.e., it doesn't know any next peer > >> in upstream direction, so only upstream Q-mode could be used, but that > >> is not really applicable in this case. So only the last paragraph of > >> section 4.3.3 applies: > >> o If no routing state exists, GIST can attempt to use Q-mode as in > >> the Query case: either sending a Data message with the Q-mode > >> encapsulation, or using the event as a trigger for routing state > >> setup (see Section 4.4). If this is not possible, e.g. because > >> the encapsulation for the MRM is only defined for one message > >> direction, then this is an error condition which is reported back > >> to the local signalling application. > >> > >> So an error will be reported back to the application. > >> As a conclusion: sending a NOTIFY in upstream direction does not > >> work along paths that have no routing state yet. > >> > >>> The asymmetric paths is a real problem, especially if the MN switches e.g. > >>> interface technologies, goes from WLAN to WiMAX, and changes operators at > >>> the same time. In that case the QUERY will hit some node, the QNI at the > >>> latest, which can then send the RESERVE towards the new location of the > >>> MN. > >> We will come back later with more detailed comments about the mobility > >> scenarios. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Roland & Martin (Roehricht) > >> > >>> Jukka > >>> > >>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Roland Bless wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Jukka, > >>>> > >>>> see comments below. > >>>> > >>>> Jukka MJ Manner wrote: > >>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>> [MN] [QNE1] --- [QNE2] ---\ > >>>>>>> | \ > >>>>>>> | [QNE3] --- [QNE6] --- [QNE7] --- > >>>>>>> | / > >>>>>>> V / > >>>>>>> [MN] [QNE4] --- [QNE5]---/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>> - MN moves, gets a hint from GIST that routing has changed > >>>>>>> - MN sends a NOTIFY towards QNI saying "Route Change" 0x02 > >>>>>>> - QNE4 will receive it, and forward it, same with QNE5 > >>>>>>> - The NOTIFY will hit QNE3, which notes that the message for a known > >>>>>>> session comes from a new SII-Handle. > >>>>>>> - QNE3 should then send a full RESERVE with a new RSN and an RII to > >>>>>>> QNE5 > >>>>>>> - QNE4 will receive the RESERVE, make the reservation, and forward it > >>>>>>> to the MN > >>>>>>> - The MN gets the RESERVE and replies with a RESPONSE > >>>>>> - In order to send NSIS message hop by hop for upstream direction (MN-> > >>>>>> QNE4->...->QNE7... in the figure below), GIST state need to be > >>>>>> established in advance, and this GIST state is established for > >>>>>> downstream direction (e.g., QNE3 aware of route change and perform route > >>>>>> change process towards MN in the new location). But if this is possible, > >>>>>> I guess "make it faster" operation (operation above) does not make sense, > >>>>>> because QNE3 (CRN) will able to do new reservation and teardown without > >>>>>> receiving NOTIFY from MN. > >>>>>> - How MRI update can be done in this case? > >>>>> In order for the MN to send the NOTIFY, each GIST hop will need to set up > >>>>> state upstream. This state establishment will result in a QUERY hitting > >>>>> QNE3, which will decide to peer. The SID is known, thus, the QNE3 will > >>>>> consider this a re-routing event, and perform the signaling as above. This > >>>>> should work? QNE3 will not know about the re-routing until QNE1 figures > >>>>> out the MN has disappeared, and QNE1 starts tearing down the reservation. > >>>> Sorry, but I don't get the point here and I doubt that its working > >>>> correctly. what is the exact scenario? > >>>> > >>>> - MN is QNR and data receiver? > >>>> - Reservation is sender-initiated? > >>>> - MN uses Mobile IP? > >>>> > >>>> I see the different cases now: > >>>> a) MN gets a new IP address and default route > >>>> b) MN performs mobility management signaling (Bindung Update) > >>>> > >>>> Is it that GIST will already detect a route change by a) > >>>> or will the route be changed by b)? > >>>> > >>>> With the current proposal I have the following issues: > >>>> * In case of a) it may be the case that QNE3 is not even hit by a Query > >>>> sent upstream due to asymmetric paths. > >>>> * The MRI must get updated along the whole path, especially for > >>>> profile update in the first hop router at the QNI. > >>>> * QNE3 tries to automatically reserve resources as they were before the > >>>> handover. This is especially inappropriate in case of vertical > >>>> handovers when the QSPEC should be changed. Therefore it would be good > >>>> that the QNI is involved in re-issuing a RESERVE. > > > _______________________________________________ > nsis mailing list > nsis@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis _______________________________________________ nsis mailing list nsis@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
- [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating from -0… Roland Bless
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Hong Cheng
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Roland Bless
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Takako Sanda
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Hong Cheng
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Roland Bless
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Roland Bless
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Jukka MJ Manner
- [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating from -0… Jukka MJ Manner
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Jukka MJ Manner
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Roland Bless
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Jukka MJ Manner
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Hong Cheng
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Jukka MJ Manner
- Re: [NSIS] Re: [NSIS Mobility draft] Updating fro… Roland Bless