Subject: [netext] Questions for defining the NETEXT2 problem space

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:12:45 +0200

Hi,

After the discussion so far, i have identified the following question 
for which i think it would be important to provide answer to define the 
requirements of the problems we are trying to tackle.

As stated earlier, the goal of this questions is to try to define the 
"what are we trying to achieve?" question.

Once we have a set of answers, we will need to do the "Why?" part.

So, this is work in progress, but i woudl appreciate input in terms of 
modificatiosn to the questions, answers to the questions and more questions.

Questions:

1)- What L2 technologies are supported? All the L2 technologies? A 
subset of L2 technologies?

2)- What changes are acceptable in the MN?
Options include:
No host changes.
Only configuration required in the host.
New code is acceptable, but no protocol changes (the motivation for this 
could include to interop with other devices already using the existent 
protocol)
Protocol extensions are acceptable.

3)- What capabilities need to be controlled by the network?
When the MN performs a handover from one interface to another one?
How the node distributes the load among interfaces? in which direction?
Which flow is routed through which interface? in which direction?

Hope this helps...

regards, marcelo

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:11:41 +0200

Hi Marcelo,

> subset of L2 technologies?

I don't think we should be developing solutions for some subset of L2
technologies. I think the discussion of what L2s are applicable in the
context of this discussion is a rat-hole.

-Raj

> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:34:47 +1000

> context of this discussion is a rat-hole.

=> I agree with Raj on this.

Hesham

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:05:26 -0700

Hi Marcelo,

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:12 AM, marcelo bagnulo braun<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After the discussion so far, i have identified the following question for
> which i think it would be important to provide answer to define the
> As stated earlier, the goal of this questions is to try to define the "what
> are we trying to achieve?" question.
>
> 1)- What L2 technologies are supported? All the L2 technologies? A subset of
> L2 technologies?

I do not think we should restrict the type of L2 that can be used any
further that what PMIPv6 already did (i.e., point-to-point link b/w MN
and MAG.)

> Protocol extensions are acceptable.

No change to the L3 software is acceptable in the MN.

Changes at L2 are acceptable (and none of our business.)

> Which flow is routed through which interface? in which direction?

I think as long as the L3 software is untouched I doesn't matter. IOW
that can be controlled in any possible way at L2.

--julien