[shim6] FW: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api

Shinta Sugimoto <shinta.sugimoto@ericsson.com> Fri, 15 January 2010 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <shinta.sugimoto@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: shim6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shim6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F893A692B for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:43:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 804f3698wFSa for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:43:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw5.ericsson.se (mailgw5.ericsson.se [193.180.251.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA07F3A6917 for <shim6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:43:11 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb24-b7bb6ae000001052-21-4b501c8bd642
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw5.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 45.BE.04178.B8C105B4; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:43:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esgscmw0055.eapac.ericsson.se (146.11.115.121) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:43:07 +0100
Received: from ESGSCCMS0002.eapac.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.218]) by esgscmw0055.eapac.ericsson.se ([146.11.115.121]) with mapi; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:43:01 +0800
From: Shinta Sugimoto <shinta.sugimoto@ericsson.com>
To: "shim6@ietf.org" <shim6@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:42:59 +0800
Thread-Topic: [shim6] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api
Thread-Index: AcqAH3V+1vP4Znj2SLGlhsfliEJUwwB4cVUwA5YQxeABVyaIoA==
Message-ID: <541EE6CB2B85BE4389E2910C9B4BC77E01C530FB05@ESGSCCMS0002.eapac.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [shim6] FW: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api
X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List <shim6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/shim6>
List-Post: <mailto:shim6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:43:16 -0000

Hi,

Let me forward an email from Michael Scharf.

Regards,
Shinta 

-----Original Message-----
From: SCHARF, Michael [mailto:Michael.Scharf@alcatel-lucent.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 9:25 PM
To: Shinta Sugimoto
Subject: RE: [shim6] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api

Dear Shinta, 

some small clearifications inline.

> > Also, the system model in Figure 2 seems to apply more to
> HIP than to
> > SHIM6.
> 
> Why do you think so?  In my understanding, the system model depicted 
> in Figure 2 can be applied to both HIP and SHIM6.

I was a little bit confused by the IPv4 boxes in that figure. I thought that SHIM6 is IPv6-only.
 
> > In addition to interactions, there could also be API
> conflicts with a
> > multi-homing capable transport, which are probably outside of the 
> > scope of this document, too.
> 
> True.  This was pointed out by Brian and we agree to mention that:
> 
> - it is not recommended to apply SHIM6 (or HIP) and any other 
> multihoming mechanism to the IP flow by referring to 
> draft-ietf-shim6-applicability
> - we recommend SCTP and multipath TCP to have API to turn on/off the 
> multihoming feature (so that the TCP/IP stack can avoid conflicting 
> use of multihoming mechanisms)

Fine for me.

For MPTCP, this essentially means that the API must turn off the multipath transport, right?

> > > 6.4.  Notification from Multihoming Shim Sub-layer to Application
> > 
> > Based on the description, I am not sure if I really understand how 
> > this notification mechanism would actually work, and what it would 
> > imply.
> 
> This is to notify the application about the locator change within a 
> multihome shim context.  Suppose if applications that run on host 1 
> (H1) and host 2 (H2) are communicating each other.  Let's assume H1 is 
> multihomed and has two locators, L1_H1 and L2_H1, and H2 is a single 
> homed host which comes with a single locator L2_H2.  Suppose if the 
> applications use L1_H1 and L2_H2 to send user data.  Now, reachability 
> between L1_H1 and L2_H2 is lost for some reason and the multihoming 
> shim sub-layer decides to re-home the application session.  The H1 
> changes its locator from L1_H1 to L2_H1.  The notification defined in 
> this section is sent to the application in this kind of circumstance, 
> i.e., whenever the locator change happens within a multihomed shim 
> context.  The reaction of the application upon receiving this 
> notification is outside the scope of this ID, but we believe such 
> notification is useful, e.g., for application that are sensitive to 
> characteristics of the communication channel.
> Does this make sense?

Yes, this is indeed a relevant use case.

But I struggled with the description of the realization the out-of-band notification, which is AFAIK a rather unusual sockets API mechanism. It would help if there was a reference to a description/tutorial of this out-of-band mechanism (Steven's book?). I have not found many examples for the usage of the forth argument of select() so far, but maybe I have searched in the wrong places. 

Michael