From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Wed Sep 1 13:44:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78EB3A6880 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 13:44:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.052 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.353, BAYES_50=0.001, MANGLED_PREMTR=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 6Mveh0xjcc7e for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 13:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 230CD3A6846 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 13:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o81KjDY9004381 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 23:45:19 +0300 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 1 Sep 2010 23:45:10 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 1 Sep 2010 23:45:05 +0300 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.88]) by nok-am1mhub-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 22:45:05 +0200 From: To: Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 22:45:02 +0200 Thread-Topic: WG meeting minutes from IETF78 Thread-Index: ActKFoyreJI9t5XX9EqKpQ7mggS9UQ== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2010 20:45:05.0553 (UTC) FILETIME=[8ECA0010:01CB4A16] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [netext] WG meeting minutes from IETF78 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:44:53 -0000 IETF WG: Network-Based Mobility Extensions (netext) Minutes from the WG meeting held at IETF78, Maastricht, Netherlands WEDNESDAY, July 28, 2010 (1300-1530 hours) Chairs: Basavaraj Patil, Rajeev Koodli Minutes are courtesy of: 1. Ashutosh Dutta 2. Juan Carlos Zuniga (juancarlos dot zuniga at interdigital dot com) -------------------------------------------------------- 1. Logistics (Bluesheets, minutes takers, jabber, agenda bashing) 5 mins 2. WG status update Chairs 5 Mins Basavaraj went over the agenda. There were no objections or changes requested to the agenda. - WGLC on LMA-redirect; WGLC expiring =AD need for more input - I-D: draft-ietf-netext-redirect-03 =AD problem statement =ADIssue the last call pretty soon - Bulk re-registration (draft-ietf-bulk-re-registration): need more reviews and input - I-D: draft-ietf-netxt-radius-pmip6 - new WG ID taken from netlmm WG. Folks were invited to provide input on this draft - Logical interface draft, flow mobility, localized routing support drafts are available to be adopted as working group document and need discussion Few new proposals are available that would be discussed as well at the end. Comment: From a logistics point, focus on WG related items only. Time permitting we will do other stuff 3. Runtime LMA selection I-D update Jouni Korhonen 5 mins I-D: draft-ietf-netext-redirect-03 Status; Review from Qin Wu, took care of the comments from last IETF. Modified two flags. Continued the clarifications WGLC started 7th July and ends 27th July WGLC completed If we can take any more review Jouni: There are only a couple of comments that need to be addressed and then its done=20 Raj: Encourage people to review it before the IESG submission Jonne Soininen : Found some editorial comments but nothing serious technical comments=20 4. Bulk re-reg I-D update and next steps Fuad Junior 5 Mins I-D: draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration-01 Send for WGLC after getting feedbackXiansong Cui =AD MNID must be included in the PBU and PBACK, Does it need to update RFC 5213.MNID is not added in the bulk registration Sri: RFC 5213 should not be affected This feature is not part of RFC5213 and it would be treated as a new option= . 5. Logical Interface Support for multi-mode IP Hosts Telemaco Melia 20 Mins I-D: draft-melia-netext-logical-interface-support-01.txt Telemaco presented the draft. This ID is based on extension/merger of last two drafts on this topic; goal is to advance it as WG draft. There were questions about logical interface properties. Mapping between interface and sub-interface were discussed. It was made clear that the dynamic mapping is not visible to the application. It described a few properties. This draft provides support for both inter-technology handover and flow-mobility support. Marco: Does it use the MAC address. It resolves according to Hui: Has the flow mobility and multi-interface been covered. How it is different from standard RFC 5213? Is there any change being made to RFC?=20 Sri: 5213 does support multi-interface mobility. Configuration is one interface. From application perspective there is one virtual interface that is considered. Carlos: Wifi and 3G, there is only one interface for the application Hui: Recommend to look into what is being discussed in MIF mailing list Rajeev: primary applicability is only for flow mobility and multi-interface and pass on those to mif working group Julien: Do not need to remove the details but explain. This is not standardizing the virtual interface. There is a standardized way of defining mif.=20 Raj: It is still in discussion stage HUI- Two overlapping documents? Rajeev: Anything beyond that we will move to other WG Julien: We need more details, why there are two different models P2 =AD Logical interface has the path awareness Rajeev: What needs to be there to start with 00 version Julien: Why, how Neighbor Discovery works This virtual interface is specific to PMIPv6. Logical interface is Gedan: Agree with logical interface definition Rajeev: How something gets triggered is a policy manager=B9s decision Gedan: When to trigger the virtual interface Rajeev: Carlos: There are work in MIF and then here Parvez: Does it have any relevance, for example CMIP does it use? External application is near zero. Would you like to put it in the device driver?=20 Rajeev: Whole point is not to affect the behavior on the host Julien=B9s comments =AD It is pre-mature to include this document as the working group document. Consensus call on adopting this I-D as WG document. =20 Chairs: Take this version as the baseline working group document Whether it is heading in the right direction 17 (Yes) vs. 3 (No) Whether this version can be adopted as a base-line =AD 17 (Yes) vs. 3 (No) The I-D will be published as WG document before the next IETF =20 6. Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility Carlos Bernardos 20 Mins I-D: draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-00 =20 Avi: how do you move it back? Carlos: you explicit signal or wait to expiration Gaetan: How do you guarantee the MN will reply fine? Tele: Logical interface Gaetan: so in both cases you are sharing the prefixes in all interfaces=20 Rajeev: today 5213 assigns unique prefixes per interface, so we need changes=20 =20 Yokota: What will the MN do when the FMI/FMA is happening? Rajeev: MN accepts packets at all times on both interfaces =20 =20 Tran Minh Trung: In your slide you are using MAC address Carlos: it could be same or different Raj: clarification on next revision TMT: after IP Flow mobility a prefix will be shared between different interfaces Carlos: ??? Julien: signaling only needed when new interface is brought up and you want to support ip flow mobility. Why two scenarios?=20 Rajeev: if people provide details and define protocols is a good thing. Define two scenarios is a good thing. If you want to have this same prefix on two interfaces you need extensions Julien: you don=B9t describe what is a session and why it is needed. How do I charge users when they are moved? Rajeev: we have to start somewhere and this is responding and providing good baseline Rajeev: I charge base on the /64, not on the MAG Julien: I still want to know why I need it Alex: There will be questions on the mailing list Phil (BT): Which milestone is this responding to? Raj: Proxy Mobile IPv6 Extensions to Support Flow Mobility Rajeev: Carlos, please incorporate comments and produce new version Chairs took a vote to find out whether this base document can be used as a WG document.=20 How many people think it can be accepted as working group baseline document =AD 9 (Yes)=20 How many people think it is not ready for working group document -6 (no) =20 Raj asked to take it to mailing list discussion =20 Carlos: Simple approach to provide flow mobility. Triggers are out of scope =20 =20 7. Localized routing solution I-D Suresh K. 20 Mins I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 =20 Multiple individual LR drafts are merged to produce a single draft. There are some open issues. The draft got some feedback from Marco, Paulo and Qin Wu in the mailing list. There is no inter-LMA communication between LMAs, so that specific scenario was left out. Lifetime of binding MAG address has been added. =20 14 agreed to adopt this document as WG document, there is no objection =20 Following are the proposals for WG consideration: Each speaker got only a few minutes to talk because of lack of time. They were advised to limit the presentation time. =20 1. Service Flow Identifier in Proxy Mobile IPv6 Hui Min 5 Mins I-D: draft-hui-netext-service-flow-identifier-03 =20 Flow ID to support flow mobility. We will discuss this in the mailing list. Cannot differentiate flows on the same tunnel. Discuss in the mailing list=20 =20 2. Flow tracking procedure for PMIPv6 Tran Trung 5 Mins I-D: draft-trung-netext-flow-tracking-01 =20 Related to flow mobility. Why do we need a link layer? =20 3. Hybrid HNP for multi-homing in PMIPv6 Yong-Geun Hong 5 Mins I-D: draft-hong-netext-hybrid-hnp-02 =20 Triggers are out of scope. =20 4. Scenarios of the usage of multiple HNPs on a logical interface Yong Geun Hong 5 Mins I-D: draft-hong-netext-scenario-logical-interface-01 Y-G. Hong =20 Consider other possible scenarios, LMA slide, overload slide =20 5. Address-option based multi-interface supporting in PMIPv6 Zhiwei Yan 5 Mins I-D: draft-zhang-netext-ao-mulif-00.txt =20 The draft was briefly discussed and the authors were advised to discuss it in the mailing list. =20 6. IKEv2/IPSEC chaining with PMIPv6, on the MAG Sri Gundavelli 5 Mins The problem statement presented seems to be relevant in the context of PMIP6 deployments. Draft-zhang-netext-ao-mulif-00.txt Primary HoA IFP =AD Interface Priority In summary 3 WG documents are moving forward and two WG last calls. Chairs requested the audience to give feedback in the mailing list. Due to lack of time, the additional drafts could not be presented properly. From root@core3.amsl.com Thu Sep 2 11:00:03 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietf.org Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 9D4C53A6C74; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100902180002.9D4C53A6C74@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 11:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-00.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:00:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : S. Krishnan, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-00.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2010-09-02 Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) is a network based mobility management protocol that enables IP mobility for a host without requiring its participation in any mobility-related signaling. PMIPv6 requires all communications to go through the local mobility anchor. As this can be suboptimal, localized routing allows mobile nodes attached to the same or different mobile access gateways to exchange traffic by using localized forwarding or a direct tunnel between the gateways. This document proposes an initiation mechanism for localized routing. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-09-02105707.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Fri Sep 3 06:12:49 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1DA3A687A for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:12:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.322 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.673, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 Silew+e+903U for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail73.telekom.de (tcmail73.telekom.de [217.243.239.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888533A68A2 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s4de8psaanq.blf.telekom.de (HELO S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.166]) by tcmail71.telekom.de with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2010 15:12:45 +0200 Received: from S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.14]) by S4DE8PSAANQ.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:12:45 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:12:43 +0200 Message-ID: <643B0A1D1A13AB498304E0BBC80278480289614F@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call to adopt I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as WG document Thread-Index: Acs0vv3/LyFyMBb9BESIvyHImEX+IQO64flfAe9FXNA= References: From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Sep 2010 13:12:45.0633 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2F65B10:01CB4B69] Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call to adopt I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as WG document X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:12:49 -0000 Dear Suresh, all, With regard to the new WG I-D some nits I may have detected: P.3: estalish =3D> establish Introduce abbreviation used on p.4: localized routing =3D> localized = routing (LR) P.7: If it is not, the MAG is not configured to allow localized routing and it will reject the LRI and send an LRA with status code "Localized Routing Not Allowed". It then creates Localized Routing Entries(LREs)... IMHO the 'then' may lead to misunderstanding. Proposal: If MAG is configured to allow localized routing it then creates=20 Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen Dirk von Hugo Deutsche Telekom AG T-Labs (Research & Development) Dirk von Hugo Deutsche-Telekom-Allee 7, 64295 Darmstadt +49 6151 937-2536 (Tel.) +49 6151 937-4611 (Fax) +49 151 14620590 (Mobil) E-Mail: mailto:dirk.von-hugo@telekom.de http://www.telekom.com =20 Erleben, was verbindet. =20 Deutsche Telekom AG Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Vorsitzender) Vorstand: Ren=E9 Obermann (Vorsitzender), Dr. Manfred Balz, Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus H=F6ttges, Guido Kerkhoff, Edward R. Kozel, Thomas = Sattelberger Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Bonn WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE50478376 Gro=DFe Ver=E4nderungen fangen klein an - Ressourcen schonen und nicht = jede E-Mail drucken.=20 -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag = von Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. August 2010 18:37 An: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [netext] Consensus call to adopt I-D: = draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as WG document The consensus call for this I-D has now expired. Based on the consensus reached at IETF78 to accept it as WG document and this call on the mailing list, we conclude that there is consensus to = move forward in accepting this as a WG I-D. We will request the publication of the I-D as a WG document. -Chairs On 8/5/10 11:55 AM, "Patil Basavaraj" wrote: >=20 >=20 > Hello, >=20 > At IETF78 we had consensus in the meeting to adopt the I-D: > draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as the WG document for the = deliverable > related to localized routing solution. >=20 > We are issuing a consensus call on the ML to ensure that everyone has = an > opportunity to express their views. >=20 > Please express your opinion (+ve or -ve) about adopting this I-D as WG > document. The consensus call will expire on August 20th, 2010. >=20 > -Chairs >=20 > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext _______________________________________________ netext mailing list netext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de Fri Sep 3 06:25:23 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336753A68C6 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:25:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 T6LjmZpTxIAq for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:25:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601F93A68C4 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 06:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s4de8psaans.blf.telekom.de (HELO s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de) ([10.151.180.168]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2010 15:25:49 +0200 Received: from S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de ([10.151.229.14]) by s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:25:48 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:25:47 +0200 Message-ID: <643B0A1D1A13AB498304E0BBC802784802896162@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [netext] Consensus call to adopt I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as WG document Thread-Index: Acs0vv3/LyFyMBb9BESIvyHImEX+IQO64flfAe9FXNAAAIxaQA== References: From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Sep 2010 13:25:48.0881 (UTC) FILETIME=[85D08410:01CB4B6B] Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call to adopt I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as WG document X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:25:23 -0000 Dear Suresh, all, Sorry for premature sending, this is the complete list: With regard to the new WG I-D some nits I may have detected: P.3: estalish =3D> establish Introduce abbreviation used on p.4: localized routing =3D> localized = routing (LR) P.7: If it is not, the MAG is not configured to allow localized routing and it will reject the LRI and send an LRA with status code "Localized Routing Not Allowed". It then creates Localized Routing Entries(LREs)... IMHO the 'then' may lead to misunderstanding. Proposal: If it is not, the MAG is not configured to allow localized routing and it will reject the LRI and send an LRA with status code "Localized Routing Not Allowed". If MAG is configured to allow localized routing it then creates Localized Routing Entries (LREs) = ... P.8 and P.11: ... localized routing is active for for MN1 ... =3D> delete 2nd 'for' P.15: entitites =3D> entities P.17: MN-1 =3D> MN1 ... MN-2 =3D> MN2 (for consistency) P.18: When Status code is 1, MUST contain only ... =3D> When Status code is not 0, MUST contain only ... (since meanwhile we have Status codes 128, 129 instead of 1 only) Thanks! Best regards Dirk=20 -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- Von: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag = von Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. August 2010 18:37 An: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [netext] Consensus call to adopt I-D: = draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as WG document The consensus call for this I-D has now expired. Based on the consensus reached at IETF78 to accept it as WG document and this call on the mailing list, we conclude that there is consensus to = move forward in accepting this as a WG I-D. We will request the publication of the I-D as a WG document. -Chairs On 8/5/10 11:55 AM, "Patil Basavaraj" wrote: >=20 >=20 > Hello, >=20 > At IETF78 we had consensus in the meeting to adopt the I-D: > draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as the WG document for the = deliverable > related to localized routing solution. >=20 > We are issuing a consensus call on the ML to ensure that everyone has = an > opportunity to express their views. >=20 > Please express your opinion (+ve or -ve) about adopting this I-D as WG > document. The consensus call will expire on August 20th, 2010. >=20 > -Chairs >=20 > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext _______________________________________________ netext mailing list netext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Thu Sep 9 15:54:16 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBEF63A698C for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:54:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 joA3MQlBJUfI for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C6A3A697B for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id o89N3XHd005141; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 18:04:07 -0500 Received: from [142.133.10.113] (147.117.20.213) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.179) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.234.1; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 18:54:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4C8965B1.90506@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 18:54:41 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de" References: <643B0A1D1A13AB498304E0BBC802784802896162@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: <643B0A1D1A13AB498304E0BBC802784802896162@S4DE8PSAAQC.mitte.t-com.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "netext@ietf.org" , "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" Subject: Re: [netext] Consensus call to adopt I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as WG document X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:54:17 -0000 Hi Dirk, Thanks for the comments. I agree with them. I will fix the issues in the next revision. Cheers Suresh On 10-09-03 09:25 AM, Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de wrote: > Dear Suresh, all, > Sorry for premature sending, this is the complete list: > > With regard to the new WG I-D some nits I may have detected: > > P.3: estalish => establish > Introduce abbreviation used on p.4: localized routing => localized routing (LR) > > P.7: > If it is not, the MAG is not configured to allow localized routing > and it will reject the LRI and send an LRA with status code > "Localized Routing Not Allowed". It then creates Localized Routing > Entries(LREs)... > IMHO the 'then' may lead to misunderstanding. Proposal: > If it is not, the MAG is not configured to allow localized routing > and it will reject the LRI and send an LRA with status code > "Localized Routing Not Allowed". If MAG is configured to allow > localized routing it then creates Localized Routing Entries (LREs) ... > > P.8 and P.11: > ... localized routing is active for for MN1 ... => delete 2nd 'for' > > P.15: entitites => entities > > P.17: MN-1 => MN1 ... MN-2 => MN2 (for consistency) > > P.18: When Status code is 1, MUST contain only ... => When Status > code is not 0, MUST contain only ... > (since meanwhile we have Status codes 128, 129 instead of 1 only) > > Thanks! > > Best regards > Dirk > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com > Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. August 2010 18:37 > An: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; netext@ietf.org > Betreff: Re: [netext] Consensus call to adopt I-D: draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as WG document > > > The consensus call for this I-D has now expired. > > Based on the consensus reached at IETF78 to accept it as WG document and > this call on the mailing list, we conclude that there is consensus to move > forward in accepting this as a WG I-D. > > We will request the publication of the I-D as a WG document. > > -Chairs > > > On 8/5/10 11:55 AM, "Patil Basavaraj" wrote: > >> >> Hello, >> >> At IETF78 we had consensus in the meeting to adopt the I-D: >> draft-krishnan-netext-pmip-lr-02 as the WG document for the deliverable >> related to localized routing solution. >> >> We are issuing a consensus call on the ML to ensure that everyone has an >> opportunity to express their views. >> >> Please express your opinion (+ve or -ve) about adopting this I-D as WG >> document. The consensus call will expire on August 20th, 2010. >> >> -Chairs >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netext mailing list >> netext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From trungtm2909@gmail.com Mon Sep 13 05:48:29 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87DF3A69A5 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:48:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.927 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.927 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 MmXo8R87pOWy for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941CC3A699D for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxl31 with SMTP id 31so2601650yxl.31 for ; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:48:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1BudyLBQkt3RZdDYPEp/S24tUDQpA8qclBalSvlOhLw=; b=QAAo1LYpq3mCygup7F64FSQEflO80Z1qwVEzTxft6UviYWjBHL7A0sr9oSpLF42oKt feoI2xDwqwiSnqJ6ZrtblcG5t3/8BqYTPL8/2YHF2Jwv7qoEHECIkSl6hYBDBJbAwG8g 5pAV/NsrVkSzrZBif/+VvLjgA3fOpq60j9YaQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=iTTpafULu8aeUw971qdNZpAsiXJ+nmLbDGhgA4x0ajo5B0BceCDLHhSyCEhOo3F+lB 2Uzmr7O/2JkmQSJcCMRBRFcnaJbdL7IRIp6xecsl7hh+uedllX4zy/8xmf7un9YyT2bv z99S0E3A9L21R0sLygrhHAS5d2uAXdIb/kWlI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.67.6 with SMTP id p6mr142646aga.39.1284382127784; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:48:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: trungtm2909@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.197.146 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:48:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:48:47 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BF5Of42Ap97S0W4mWuj6TYzaGx0 Message-ID: From: Tran Minh Trung To: Rajeev Koodli Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: netext@ietf.org, "Laganier, Julien" Subject: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:48:30 -0000 Hi Rajeev, Julien, Sri and all, We have submitted new ID at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support/ Could you check it out and give us your comments? To support flow mobility, our ID allows PMIPv6 to support shared-prefix model and flow-based routing. For supporting shared-prefix model, we recommend the implementations to extend PMIPv6 in two ways: - Proactive signaling: HNP is shared across attachments immediately when it is assigned to the MN. - Re-active signaling: HNP is shared only when a flow using that HNP is moved to an attachment that the HNP is not valid. For supporting flow-based routing, we adopt the existing work from flow binding ID in MEXT WG. For more detail, Pls. check our new ID at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support/ We appreciate your comments. Regards, TrungTM On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Rajeev Koodli wrote: > > This is the essence of what I have been saying: > > 1. LMA can assign whatever prefix it chooses upon each attachment > (already-assigned prefix, a new one, a combination of the two) > 2. For flow mobility to work, the prefix has to be valid on the > corresponding MAG > 3. It is up to the LMA to decide when to signal the prefix (if it is not > already valid on the MAG in question) - my statement "whenever the LMA > decides.." in the text I proposed. > > So, to answer your question (Reactive vs. Proactive): leave it to the LMA= . > But, we do need to document the implications of *when* we signal the pref= ix > to MAGs; e.g., signaling as soon as the MN is assigned a new prefix vs. > on-demand. > > The remaining question in my mind is what is the requirement for a MAG wh= en > it learns a new prefix? It should advertize it in the RA for ND to work > correctly? Are we okay without it? Not sure.. > > -Rajeev > > > > On 8/19/10 7:22 PM, "Youn-Hee Han" wrote: > >> Hi Julien and all, >> >>>> >>>> Things are getting complexed... Now, the MN can have multiple logical >>>> interfaces. If this is the case, just prohibit flow mobility between >>>> difference logical interfaces such as between IF1 and IF3. This is >>>> equivalent to non-support of logical interface. This just doesn't work >>>> and nobody who is rational enough would complain... >>>> >>>> Let's try to make it as simple as possible in order to get consensus >>>> more easily please... >>> >>> Agree. As simple as possible is: all prefixes assigned to the mobile no= de >>> are signaled to the mobile node's MAG. Then LMA can decides where to ro= ute >>> flow. This is the minimum requirement for network-based flow mobility. >>> >>> --julien >> >> As I wrote in the previous mails, I also agree with Julien. >> I'd like to rephrase his comments as follows >> >> "All prefixes assigned to an MN are signaled to the *all* MAGs which ser= ve the >> MN. >> Then, LMA can decides where to route each flow. This is the minimum >> requirement >> for the network-based flow mobility." I like this. >> >> But, there is still an issue relevant to the signaling. >> It can be called "Proactive vs. Reactive Signaling." >> >> "Proactive Signaling" means that when LMA assigns a new prefix to MN via= an >> MAG, >> it proactively signals the prefix to the other all MAGs. "Reactive Signa= ling" >> means that LMA signals the new prefix to another (not all) MAG only when= a >> flow >> is needed to be moved to the MAG which has not the prefix. >> >> Which strategy should we select? or... We support both? >> >> Youn-Hee Han >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netext mailing list >> netext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > --=20 Ph.D., Senior Member Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute Standards Research Center 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 305-350, KOREA Tel : +82-42-860-1132,=A0=A0 Fax : +82-42-861-5404 From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Fri Sep 17 09:59:32 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9C23A67F6 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:59:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.408 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.191, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 QXmtDSSE97tS for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 919BE3A680A for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o8HGxfoU022994 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:59:49 -0500 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:58:29 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:58:29 +0300 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.88]) by nok-am1mhub-02.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:58:29 +0200 From: To: Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:58:26 +0200 Thread-Topic: NomCom 2010-2011: Call for More Nominations Thread-Index: ActWiGnA8ZjB7bI1RxKyKert9R8E7gAASGvj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <274D46DDEB9F2244B2F1EA66B3FF54BC0783366F@de01exm70.ds.mot.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2010 16:58:29.0745 (UTC) FILETIME=[8DAA5610:01CB5689] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [netext] Fwd: NomCom 2010-2011: Call for More Nominations X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:59:32 -0000 Please consider the request from Mary Barnes w.r.t. Nominations for the Nomcom. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: NomCom Chair > Date: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM > Subject: NomCom 2010-2011: Call for More Nominations > To: IETF Announcement list >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Hi Folks, >=20 > Nominations have slowed down dramatically, so this update is to enlist > the community in an effort to pick up the pace. >=20 > We are very far behind in nominations for all the open positions but in > particular we need nominations for the IESG and IAOC open positions. > There have been no nominations received (other than for the incumbents) > in INT, RAI, and RTG, and only 1 for OPS. =A0Likewise, in IAOC there have > been no nominations submitted other than the incumbent. >=20 > The acceptance rates of those nominated has also been very slow. In > order to initiate the open list of willing nominees we are in need of a > reasonable number of acceptances, and due to the low number of nominees > and acceptances have delayed the start date for publishing the first > open list to September 20. =A0So if you have been nominated and are > willing to serve, but have not yet confirmed this by email back to the > NomCom, please do so as soon as possible. >=20 > We need Community input and participation! We cannot properly execute > the task of selecting the best candidates for these positions with so > few nominations and acceptances. So, please consider making > nominations for the open positions, in particular those for which we > have so few nominations - it takes just a few minutes of your time. > Right now, we just need the names/email addresses. >=20 > Why do we need more nominations? =A0Well, even if you think a willing > incumbent is doing a very good job and should be returned, his or her > ability to serve again might be impacted by unforeseen circumstances > between now and March. NomCom needs to consider multiple nominees to be > prepared in the event one or more candidates is unable to serve come next > March and to ensure we have chosen the best candidate. >=20 > There are several ways you can help the IETF Nominating Committee. >=20 > - You may nominate yourself. > - You can nominate someone you know whom you think would do a good job. >=20 > Do not worry about whether they might already be nominated. We would > much prefer to receive the same nomination several times rather than > miss a good person we should consider. >=20 > How to submit Nominations: > -------------------------- > The list of positions we need to fill, and the provided Job > Descriptions, and forms for nominations, can be found in the call for > nominations at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ann/nomcom/2468/ >=20 > You may enter a nomination by going to the following URL > https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/10/nominate >=20 > You may also nominate someone by sending an email to nomcom10@ietf.org > and giving us their name, email address and the open position you are > nominating them for. We will take care of the rest. >=20 > If you are asked for a user name and password, use an existing ietf login > and password. If you need a login and password, request one from the tool= s > page at the following URL http://trac.tools.ietf.org/newlogin >=20 >=20 > Open List: > ---------- > As you already know, NomCom 2010-2011 will follow the policy for "Open > Disclosure of Willing Nominees" described in RFC 5680. >=20 > Feedback Collection: > -------------------- > Once the open list is available, the entire community will be invited > to provide feedback. I will send a further announcement requesting > feedback on the nominees, describing how to submit feedback, and how to > view the open list of nominees. >=20 > Thank you, >=20 > Thomas Walsh > Chair, NomCom 2010-2011 > nomcom-chair@ietf.org > twalsh@juniper.net >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > -- > Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org > Web interface: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4 > Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html > Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/ ------ End of Forwarded Message From sgundave@cisco.com Fri Sep 17 20:39:23 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B153A6838 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:39:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.343 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.256, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 Eb0KCCEMMQIY for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446B73A6961 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEALrQk0yrRN+K/2dsb2JhbACiLXGmCJxChUAEhEyFZ4MEgls X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,385,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="591143540" Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Sep 2010 03:39:41 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8I3dgMc015388; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:39:42 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:39:42 -0700 Received: from 10.32.246.214 ([10.32.246.214]) by xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:39:41 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:39:37 -0700 From: Sri Gundavelli To: Tran Minh Trung Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 Thread-Index: ActW4x3vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoA== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2010 03:39:42.0059 (UTC) FILETIME=[20F393B0:01CB56E3] Cc: netext@ietf.org, "Laganier, Julien" Subject: Re: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:39:23 -0000 Hi Tran: Thanks for the document and your efforts on this work. Carlos Bernardos is working on the flow mobility solution spec. He is consolidating the earlier discussed solution specs into one document. He is the editor for that document. I've quickly read your spec and this is overlaps with that work. But, I do see lot of efforts went into this document, surely some of the work around BCE extensions, or the notification messages from LMA ..etc can be leveraged. I've issues with the support for shared prefix model, there are technical challenges, other than that the approach of solving mobility at the granularity of prefixes as what you guys documented is fine with no need for new options. I agree with this. Currently, we have too much of garbage in our solution spec, we have to simplify the approaches and support some basic mobility scenarios, such as flow movement at prefix level, the presence of natural RA triggers. We need a simple spec. Hopefully, we will get there. Please talk to Carlos and the Raj who is shepherding this work as the WG chair, and possibly see how this work can be leveraged. Regards Sri On 9/13/10 5:48 AM, "Tran Minh Trung" wrote: > Hi Rajeev, Julien, Sri and all, > > We have submitted new ID at: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support/ > > Could you check it out and give us your comments? > > To support flow mobility, our ID allows PMIPv6 to support > shared-prefix model and flow-based routing. > > For supporting shared-prefix model, we recommend the implementations > to extend PMIPv6 in two ways: > - Proactive signaling: HNP is shared across attachments immediately > when it is assigned to the MN. > - Re-active signaling: HNP is shared only when a flow using that HNP > is moved to an attachment that the HNP is not valid. > > For supporting flow-based routing, we adopt the existing work from > flow binding ID in MEXT WG. > > For more detail, Pls. check our new ID at: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support/ > > We appreciate your comments. > Regards, > TrungTM > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Rajeev Koodli wrote: >> >> This is the essence of what I have been saying: >> >> 1. LMA can assign whatever prefix it chooses upon each attachment >> (already-assigned prefix, a new one, a combination of the two) >> 2. For flow mobility to work, the prefix has to be valid on the >> corresponding MAG >> 3. It is up to the LMA to decide when to signal the prefix (if it is not >> already valid on the MAG in question) - my statement "whenever the LMA >> decides.." in the text I proposed. >> >> So, to answer your question (Reactive vs. Proactive): leave it to the LMA. >> But, we do need to document the implications of *when* we signal the prefix >> to MAGs; e.g., signaling as soon as the MN is assigned a new prefix vs. >> on-demand. >> >> The remaining question in my mind is what is the requirement for a MAG when >> it learns a new prefix? It should advertize it in the RA for ND to work >> correctly? Are we okay without it? Not sure.. >> >> -Rajeev >> >> >> >> On 8/19/10 7:22 PM, "Youn-Hee Han" wrote: >> >>> Hi Julien and all, >>> >>>>> >>>>> Things are getting complexed... Now, the MN can have multiple logical >>>>> interfaces. If this is the case, just prohibit flow mobility between >>>>> difference logical interfaces such as between IF1 and IF3. This is >>>>> equivalent to non-support of logical interface. This just doesn't work >>>>> and nobody who is rational enough would complain... >>>>> >>>>> Let's try to make it as simple as possible in order to get consensus >>>>> more easily please... >>>> >>>> Agree. As simple as possible is: all prefixes assigned to the mobile node >>>> are signaled to the mobile node's MAG. Then LMA can decides where to route >>>> flow. This is the minimum requirement for network-based flow mobility. >>>> >>>> --julien >>> >>> As I wrote in the previous mails, I also agree with Julien. >>> I'd like to rephrase his comments as follows >>> >>> "All prefixes assigned to an MN are signaled to the *all* MAGs which serve >>> the >>> MN. >>> Then, LMA can decides where to route each flow. This is the minimum >>> requirement >>> for the network-based flow mobility." I like this. >>> >>> But, there is still an issue relevant to the signaling. >>> It can be called "Proactive vs. Reactive Signaling." >>> >>> "Proactive Signaling" means that when LMA assigns a new prefix to MN via an >>> MAG, >>> it proactively signals the prefix to the other all MAGs. "Reactive >>> Signaling" >>> means that LMA signals the new prefix to another (not all) MAG only when a >>> flow >>> is needed to be moved to the MAG which has not the prefix. >>> >>> Which strategy should we select? or... We support both? >>> >>> Youn-Hee Han >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netext mailing list >>> netext@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netext mailing list >> netext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >> > > From trungtm2909@gmail.com Sun Sep 19 22:49:21 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA093A6987 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.931 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.931 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 vzD72ayQk93n for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202643A6947 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:49:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so4729416iwn.31 for ; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:49:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Vk83RNbl/IzUgvfBI2aX83qcIVxUuEnX2Aoav3QmVtI=; b=CBChipb1xGbcdc11NEsF2EJdtqezHQZ8nuSsz0ZSX1Y+yt90B7Qf5pmDL/lAvNDLpr Yb84nZWLdOWCUG1kmw+ETGI8GEDysPhdHlJzECoM6ILjSXE3SP3R4pn2U/vtPBX1t27l 3ct9nJ9u4DFLPfqfQ1DgpHAQ9bun7XgugO7Ow= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=JG3XLHdDpGdPQfiIUr2An98ReUOOK1MgYHsDKaah46SayLaMQSZy75Sv/Xwgm+1C3k fO4eTID4/BsnIZXPV4mZdWqVxkXloTrD4OrIJv5Udj2T4gpvOtq7edZwVDotQzAYw7zi XFOBZY3CWNsH6wNookewcSqQpwyKrqwdN2vjI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.160.205 with SMTP id o13mr9825158ibx.15.1284961756290; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: trungtm2909@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.154.200 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:49:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:49:16 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FFVi1jv28BotPzQ7i6qSi5Qo9lA Message-ID: From: Tran Minh Trung To: Sri Gundavelli Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: netext@ietf.org, "Laganier, Julien" Subject: Re: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 05:49:21 -0000 Hi Sri, Thank you for your feedback and agreement. We will talk to Carlos and the Raj about how to leverage it. We do hope that we can simplify and have a simple spec. for supporting flow mobility in PMIPv6. By the way, what do you mean when saying "... flow movement at prefix level, the presence of natural RA triggers"?. Could you elaborate more about it?. Regards, TrungTM On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Sri Gundavelli wrote= : > Hi Tran: > > Thanks for the document and your efforts on this work. > > > Carlos Bernardos is working on the flow mobility solution spec. He is > consolidating the earlier discussed solution specs into one document. He = is > the editor for that document. > > I've quickly read your spec and this is overlaps with that work. But, I d= o > see lot of efforts went into this document, surely some of the work aroun= d > BCE extensions, or the notification messages from LMA =A0..etc can be > leveraged. I've issues with the support for shared prefix model, there ar= e > technical challenges, other than that the approach of solving mobility at > the granularity of prefixes as what you guys documented is fine with no n= eed > for new options. I agree with this. Currently, we have too much of garbag= e > in our solution spec, we have to simplify the approaches and support some > basic mobility scenarios, such as flow movement at prefix level, the > presence of natural RA triggers. We need a simple spec. Hopefully, we wil= l > get there. > > Please talk to Carlos and the Raj who is shepherding this work as the WG > chair, and possibly see how this work can be leveraged. > > > > Regards > Sri > > > > > > On 9/13/10 5:48 AM, "Tran Minh Trung" wrote: > >> Hi Rajeev, Julien, Sri =A0and all, >> >> We have submitted new ID at: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support= / >> >> Could you check it out and give us your comments? >> >> To support flow mobility, our ID allows PMIPv6 to support >> shared-prefix model and flow-based routing. >> >> For supporting shared-prefix model, we recommend the implementations >> to extend PMIPv6 in two ways: >> - =A0Proactive signaling: HNP is shared across attachments immediately >> when it is assigned to the MN. >> - =A0Re-active signaling: HNP is shared only when a flow using that HNP >> is moved to an attachment that the HNP is not valid. >> >> For supporting flow-based routing, we adopt the existing work from >> flow binding ID in MEXT WG. >> >> For more detail, Pls. check our new ID at: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support= / >> >> We appreciate your comments. >> Regards, >> TrungTM >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Rajeev Koodli wrot= e: >>> >>> This is the essence of what I have been saying: >>> >>> 1. LMA can assign whatever prefix it chooses upon each attachment >>> (already-assigned prefix, a new one, a combination of the two) >>> 2. For flow mobility to work, the prefix has to be valid on the >>> corresponding MAG >>> 3. It is up to the LMA to decide when to signal the prefix (if it is no= t >>> already valid on the MAG in question) - my statement "whenever the LMA >>> decides.." in the text I proposed. >>> >>> So, to answer your question (Reactive vs. Proactive): leave it to the L= MA. >>> But, we do need to document the implications of *when* we signal the pr= efix >>> to MAGs; e.g., signaling as soon as the MN is assigned a new prefix vs. >>> on-demand. >>> >>> The remaining question in my mind is what is the requirement for a MAG = when >>> it learns a new prefix? It should advertize it in the RA for ND to work >>> correctly? Are we okay without it? Not sure.. >>> >>> -Rajeev >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/19/10 7:22 PM, "Youn-Hee Han" wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Julien and all, >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Things are getting complexed... Now, the MN can have multiple logica= l >>>>>> interfaces. If this is the case, just prohibit flow mobility between >>>>>> difference logical interfaces such as between IF1 and IF3. This is >>>>>> equivalent to non-support of logical interface. This just doesn't wo= rk >>>>>> and nobody who is rational enough would complain... >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's try to make it as simple as possible in order to get consensus >>>>>> more easily please... >>>>> >>>>> Agree. As simple as possible is: all prefixes assigned to the mobile = node >>>>> are signaled to the mobile node's MAG. Then LMA can decides where to = route >>>>> flow. This is the minimum requirement for network-based flow mobility= . >>>>> >>>>> --julien >>>> >>>> As I wrote in the previous mails, I also agree with Julien. >>>> I'd like to rephrase his comments as follows >>>> >>>> "All prefixes assigned to an MN are signaled to the *all* MAGs which s= erve >>>> the >>>> MN. >>>> Then, LMA can decides where to route each flow. This is the minimum >>>> requirement >>>> for the network-based flow mobility." I like this. >>>> >>>> But, there is still an issue relevant to the signaling. >>>> It can be called "Proactive vs. Reactive Signaling." >>>> >>>> "Proactive Signaling" means that when LMA assigns a new prefix to MN v= ia an >>>> MAG, >>>> it proactively signals the prefix to the other all MAGs. "Reactive >>>> Signaling" >>>> means that LMA signals the new prefix to another (not all) MAG only wh= en a >>>> flow >>>> is needed to be moved to the MAG which has not the prefix. >>>> >>>> Which strategy should we select? or... We support both? >>>> >>>> Youn-Hee Han >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> netext mailing list >>>> netext@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netext mailing list >>> netext@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext > --=20 Ph.D., Senior Member Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute Standards Research Center 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 305-350, KOREA Tel : +82-42-860-1132,=A0=A0 Fax : +82-42-861-5404 From julienl@qualcomm.com Mon Sep 20 09:11:39 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13AA53A685B for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:11:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 irxbHIdUPskG for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EA03A69EE for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:11:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=julienl@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1284999119; x=1316535119; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; z=From:=20"Laganier,=20Julien"=20 |To:=20Sri=20Gundavelli=20,=20Tran=20 Minh=20Trung=20|CC:=20"netext@ietf.or g"=20|Date:=20Mon,=2020=20Sep=202010=200 9:11:55=20-0700|Subject:=20RE:=20[netext]=20Comments=20& =20Feedback=20on=20the=20ID:=0D=0A=20draft-trung-netext-f low-mobility-support-00|Thread-Topic:=20[netext]=20Commen ts=20&=20Feedback=20on=20the=20ID:=0D=0A=20draft-trung-ne text-flow-mobility-support-00|Thread-Index:=20ActW4x3vuZU q+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZg|Message-ID:=20 |References:=20=0D=0A=20|In-Reply-To:=20 |Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en-US |X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|acceptlanguage: =20en-US|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-as cii"|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=n7UxEirawIgUdHEFMhRp45M4jbydRHkDBl9krFWVgfk=; b=Dw28rIQx/JT43K7j3nAUhy7x+OH4f9/CM6xCoYKSHXzLqDTUCahvFMTo taVi0zaRQYr4LOx4eXppPYSooMYzNlpYaO0z3lHUWvpHVikyzaaL9l70M C4m6P2bpTS/vzyN7HyeTYIz6070SA4mVCLI+5fESdJj+fKApqOjFDS8z8 4=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6111"; a="55091130" Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2010 09:11:58 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,391,1280732400"; d="scan'208";a="15569405" Received: from nasanexhub01.na.qualcomm.com ([10.46.93.121]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 20 Sep 2010 09:11:58 -0700 Received: from nalasexhub02.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.130.89) by nasanexhub01.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.93.121) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:11:59 -0700 Received: from NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.7.114]) by nalasexhub02.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.130.89]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:11:58 -0700 From: "Laganier, Julien" To: Sri Gundavelli , Tran Minh Trung Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:11:55 -0700 Thread-Topic: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 Thread-Index: ActW4x3vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZg Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: 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 Cc: "netext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:11:39 -0000 Hi Sri, Sri Gundavelli wrote: >=20 > Hi Tran: >=20 > Thanks for the document and your efforts on this work. > =20 > Carlos Bernardos is working on the flow mobility solution spec. He is > consolidating the earlier discussed solution specs into one document. > He is the editor for that document. Just to make sure we're all the same page here: Carlos is working on _a_ fl= ow mobility solution specification. The WG has not adopted a specific docum= ent yet. =20 > I've quickly read your spec and this is overlaps with that work. But, I > do see lot of efforts went into this document, surely some of the work > around BCE extensions, or the notification messages from LMA ..etc can b= e > leveraged. I've issues with the support for shared prefix model, there > are technical challenges, other than that the approach of solving mobilit= y > at the granularity of prefixes as what you guys documented is fine with n= o > need for new options. Could you please be more specific as to what are your issues with the suppo= rt for shared prefix model?=20 =20 > I agree with this. Currently, we have too much = of > garbage in our solution spec, we have to simplify the approaches and supp= ort > some basic mobility scenarios, such as flow movement at prefix level, the > presence of natural RA triggers. We need a simple spec. Hopefully, we > will get there. Isn't the fact that there is "too much garbage in [your] solution spec" a n= atural outcome of this WG not having a discussion to capture solution requi= rements that corresponds to the high level "flow mobility" function? The lack of discussion in that space impairs our ability to do good enginee= ring and is hindering progress. At minimum we need to agree on a common ter= minology. For example I do not know what "flow movement at prefix level" or= "natural RA triggers" mean? Could you please be more specific? =20 > Please talk to Carlos and the Raj who is shepherding this work as the > WG chair, and possibly see how this work can be leveraged. At this point I do not understand why you are redirecting Tran to Carlos; t= his WG has not adopted a specific document. What would be appropriate for n= ow is for participants to this WG to have a discussion on the list on what = are "flow mobility" solution requirements. That being done, we can have a d= ebate on what is the best solution fulfilling these requirements. --julien From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Mon Sep 20 09:17:56 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8513A685B for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:17:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.415 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 F3QiBqZJZjVA for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254453A659C for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o8KGHiJT021895; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:17:58 +0300 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:17:36 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:17:35 +0300 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.88]) by nok-am1mhub-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:17:36 +0200 From: To: , , Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:17:34 +0200 Thread-Topic: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 Thread-Index: ActW4x3vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZgAAC/eN0= Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Sep 2010 16:17:35.0906 (UTC) FILETIME=[564D7820:01CB58DF] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:17:57 -0000 On 9/20/10 11:11 AM, "ext Laganier, Julien" wrote: > Hi Sri, >=20 > Sri Gundavelli wrote: >>=20 >> Hi Tran: >>=20 >> Thanks for the document and your efforts on this work. >>=20 >> Carlos Bernardos is working on the flow mobility solution spec. He is >> consolidating the earlier discussed solution specs into one document. >> He is the editor for that document. >=20 > Just to make sure we're all the same page here: Carlos is working on _a_ = flow > mobility solution specification. The WG has not adopted a specific docume= nt > yet. >=20 There is no WG adopted I-D specifying flow mobility using PMIP6 yet. I migh= t however add that we will (may) seek consensus and WG feedback prior to IETF79 on adopting "an" I-D as the WG baseline. -Raj From julienl@qualcomm.com Mon Sep 20 09:29:13 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063C73A6934 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:29:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 epNKUArxuOU9 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:29:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98ED73A685B for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:29:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=julienl@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1285000175; x=1316536175; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; z=From:=20"Laganier,=20Julien"=20 |To:=20"Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com"=20,=0D=0A=09"sgundave@cisco.com"=20,=20"trungtm@etri.re.kr"=0D=0A=09 |CC:=20"netext@ietf.org"=20,=20Jari=20Ar kko=20|Date:=20Mon,=2020=20Sep=2020 10=2009:29:31=20-0700|Subject:=20RE:=20[netext]=20Comment s=20&=20Feedback=20on=20the=20ID:=0D=0A=20draft-trung-net ext-flow-mobility-support-00|Thread-Topic:=20[netext]=20C omments=20&=20Feedback=20on=20the=20ID:=0D=0A=20draft-tru ng-netext-flow-mobility-support-00|Thread-Index:=20ActW4x 3vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZgAAC/eN0AAC0i4A=3D=3D |Message-ID:=20|References:=20=0D=0A=20 |In-Reply-To:=20 |Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en-US |X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|acceptlanguage: =20en-US|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-as cii"|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=LtN4YS91TT4DjxRJSnMv+lBftKDL/Qm7v4UJDrIaAEg=; b=ru7Vmk8bFLz8hm/vORaevOhytBaH5VPCDVl3Vja2UKGuJFilngVho3DY 6DXB7h2/rezprw47QGMXad4PHS9zMHjq138WcIOYHaIY4Qfu5tki8F1Xr Fj+T4SqqLvA2FOU3eEz71DuwoW7rvEUOwDPzwvi1ZanEIV1QGZKB8u+/c M=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6111"; a="54976892" Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2010 09:29:35 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,391,1280732400"; d="scan'208";a="8741066" Received: from nasanexhub02.na.qualcomm.com ([10.46.143.120]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 20 Sep 2010 09:29:34 -0700 Received: from nasanexhc06.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.3) by nasanexhub02.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.143.120) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:29:34 -0700 Received: from nalasexhub04.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.130.55) by nasanexhc06.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.3) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:29:34 -0700 Received: from NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.7.114]) by nalasexhub04.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.130.55]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:29:33 -0700 From: "Laganier, Julien" To: "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" , "sgundave@cisco.com" , "trungtm@etri.re.kr" Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:29:31 -0700 Thread-Topic: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 Thread-Index: ActW4x3vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZgAAC/eN0AAC0i4A== Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: 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 Cc: "netext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:29:13 -0000 Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote:=20 >=20 > On 9/20/10 11:11 AM, "ext Laganier, Julien" > wrote: >=20 > > Hi Sri, > > > > Sri Gundavelli wrote: > >> > >> Hi Tran: > >> > >> Thanks for the document and your efforts on this work. > >> > >> Carlos Bernardos is working on the flow mobility solution spec. He is > >> consolidating the earlier discussed solution specs into one document. > >> He is the editor for that document. > > > > Just to make sure we're all the same page here: Carlos is working on > > _a_ flow mobility solution specification. The WG has not adopted a spec= ific > > document yet. >=20 > There is no WG adopted I-D specifying flow mobility using PMIP6 yet. I > might however add that we will (may) seek consensus and WG feedback prior= to > IETF79 on adopting "an" I-D as the WG baseline. IMHO it would be perfectly appropriate to do so after we have a discussion = on what are simple solution requirements. Absent that, we will find ourselv= es in the exact same situation that in Maastricht where there was a push to= adopt a solution document that had barely been discussed, and as a result = fail to reach rough consensus. For the sake of getting the discussion we need to have started, maybe one o= f the co-author of each of the solution on the table could highlight in a s= hort note to the list the requirements that their solution fulfill. Once th= ese have been discussed it will be much easier to get consensus on the solu= tion that best fulfills those.=20 --julien=20 From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Mon Sep 20 09:35:18 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864D43A69E3 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:35:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.422 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.177, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 HqjlKzZ+NUsW for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-mx03.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00FA33A672E for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o8KGZHei022184; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:35:26 +0300 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:35:17 +0300 Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:35:11 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:35:07 +0300 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.88]) by nok-am1mhub-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:35:07 +0200 From: To: , , , Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:35:04 +0200 Thread-Topic: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 Thread-Index: ActW4x3vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZgAAC/eN0AAC0i4AAAb1UM Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Sep 2010 16:35:07.0298 (UTC) FILETIME=[C8FB2820:01CB58E1] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:35:18 -0000 Hi Julien, On 9/20/10 11:29 AM, "ext Laganier, Julien" wrote: > Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote: >>=20 >> On 9/20/10 11:11 AM, "ext Laganier, Julien" >> wrote: >>=20 >> There is no WG adopted I-D specifying flow mobility using PMIP6 yet. I >> might however add that we will (may) seek consensus and WG feedback prio= r to >> IETF79 on adopting "an" I-D as the WG baseline. >=20 > IMHO it would be perfectly appropriate to do so after we have a discussio= n on > what are simple solution requirements. Absent that, we will find ourselve= s in > the exact same situation that in Maastricht where there was a push to ado= pt a > solution document that had barely been discussed, and as a result fail to > reach rough consensus. Right.. I am hoping to make progress on this work item by having a discussion on the ML now and not wait to get to Beijing. >=20 > For the sake of getting the discussion we need to have started, maybe one= of > the co-author of each of the solution on the table could highlight in a s= hort > note to the list the requirements that their solution fulfill. Once these= have > been discussed it will be much easier to get consensus on the solution th= at > best fulfills those. I hope the authors/editors of these I-Ds take note of your suggestion. I will prod them to initiate such a discussion on the ML ASAP. -Raj >=20 > --julien > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From julienl@qualcomm.com Mon Sep 20 09:40:58 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527F83A69D8 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:40:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.557 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 NuvJ6zD+3wxM for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AD53A6AB0 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:40:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=julienl@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1285000863; x=1316536863; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; z=From:=20"Laganier,=20Julien"=20 |To:=20"Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com"=20,=0D=0A=09"sgundave@cisco.com"=20,=20"trungtm@etri.re.kr"=0D=0A=09, =20"cjbc@it.uc3m.es"=20|CC:=20"netext@ie tf.org"=20|Date:=20Mon,=2020=20Sep=20201 0=2009:40:21=20-0700|Subject:=20RE:=20[netext]=20Comments =20&=20Feedback=20on=20the=20ID:=0D=0A=20draft-trung-nete xt-flow-mobility-support-00|Thread-Topic:=20[netext]=20Co mments=20&=20Feedback=20on=20the=20ID:=0D=0A=20draft-trun g-netext-flow-mobility-support-00|Thread-Index:=20ActW4x3 vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZgAAC/eN0AAC0i4AAAb1UMAAAhwKA =3D|Message-ID:=20|References:=20=0D=0A=20 |In-Reply-To:=20 |Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en-US |X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|acceptlanguage: =20en-US|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-as cii"|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=3aC5WebZWUqgQg5qtQoUscu5l9AHYs+WGVD549HSgEs=; b=Wl7dFCA7ip9y4SFHNFv5EKebzbXLL8ZBuKYjZxNZK5oEPRM2d1eq9gys tF65KaXonqyh60YXeETaA2vUY44Wc/ko4iuwMNbJNekq9pcBFdl73X3GM yhf7P7zWqm9nt3lH/dPMYsr32VpaFzilv+ztrea1XX3jpg8L6Kb6sRJS7 Q=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6111"; a="54978059" Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2010 09:40:24 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,391,1280732400"; d="scan'208";a="8742557" Received: from nasanexhub05.na.qualcomm.com ([129.46.134.219]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 20 Sep 2010 09:40:24 -0700 Received: from nasanex14h01.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.94.107) by nasanexhub05.na.qualcomm.com (129.46.134.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:40:23 -0700 Received: from nalasexhub01.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.130.49) by nasanex14h01.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.94.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:40:23 -0700 Received: from NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.7.114]) by nalasexhub01.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.130.49]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:40:23 -0700 From: "Laganier, Julien" To: "Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com" , "sgundave@cisco.com" , "trungtm@etri.re.kr" , "cjbc@it.uc3m.es" Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:40:21 -0700 Thread-Topic: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 Thread-Index: ActW4x3vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZgAAC/eN0AAC0i4AAAb1UMAAAhwKA= Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: 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 Cc: "netext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:40:58 -0000 Hi Raj, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com=20 >=20 > Hi Julien, >=20 > On 9/20/10 11:29 AM, "ext Laganier, Julien" > wrote: >=20 > > Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote: > >> > >> On 9/20/10 11:11 AM, "ext Laganier, Julien" > >> wrote: > >> > >> There is no WG adopted I-D specifying flow mobility using PMIP6 yet. > >> I might however add that we will (may) seek consensus and WG feedback > >> prior to IETF79 on adopting "an" I-D as the WG baseline. > > > > IMHO it would be perfectly appropriate to do so after we have a > > discussion on what are simple solution requirements. Absent that, we wi= ll=20 > > find ourselves in the exact same situation that in Maastricht where the= re > > was a push to adopt a solution document that had barely been discussed,= and > > as a result fail to reach rough consensus. >=20 > Right.. I am hoping to make progress on this work item by having a > discussion on the ML now and not wait to get to Beijing. Glad to see we're on the same page. > > For the sake of getting the discussion we need to have started, maybe > > one of the co-author of each of the solution on the table could highlig= ht in > > a short note to the list the requirements that their solution fulfill. = Once > > these have been discussed it will be much easier to get consensus on th= e > > solution that best fulfills those. >=20 > I hope the authors/editors of these I-Ds take note of your suggestion. > I will prod them to initiate such a discussion on the ML ASAP. Thank you. --julien From sgundave@cisco.com Mon Sep 20 10:04:55 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6BD33A6B26 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:04:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.353 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.246, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 tgO205kA1KBo for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB9343A6B2E for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEACUxl0yrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACiGXGmP5wLhUEEhE6FaoME X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,394,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="363579766" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2010 17:04:11 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8KH4ATS026778; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:04:11 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:04:10 -0700 Received: from 10.32.246.214 ([10.32.246.214]) by xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:04:09 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:04:06 -0700 From: Sri Gundavelli To: "Laganier, Julien" , Tran Minh Trung Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 Thread-Index: ActW4x3vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZgAAJfg3w= In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Sep 2010 17:04:10.0908 (UTC) FILETIME=[D840EDC0:01CB58E5] Cc: "netext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:04:55 -0000 Hi Julien: The latest draft from Carlos (once the authors agree on the text which is under discussions), should be the basis for review. The key aspects for review: 1. Supported scenarios 2. Options carried in signaling messages 3. RA management on the MAG-MN link 4. Flow policy assumptions and related aspects, leveraging of MEXT options Currently, Carlos is working on simplyfing the doc, based on the discussions between dozen authors, hopefully what you see is a clean and a simple approach, as what Carlos attempted to present in the meeting. I agree with you, the earlier doc required lot of work and so he is doing that. To your specific comments on clarification, #1 should clarify on the flow mobility approaches. Moving flows at a group level, always the movement of whole prefix, and also the approach of individual flow movement. We can let Carlos complete the doc update, and we can pick up the discussion from there. I'm sure, we will discuss a lot, or there is a good possibility, you might agree to the whole solution and with no further comments. :) Regards Sri On 9/20/10 9:11 AM, "Laganier, Julien" wrote: > Hi Sri, > > Sri Gundavelli wrote: >> >> Hi Tran: >> >> Thanks for the document and your efforts on this work. >> >> Carlos Bernardos is working on the flow mobility solution spec. He is >> consolidating the earlier discussed solution specs into one document. >> He is the editor for that document. > > Just to make sure we're all the same page here: Carlos is working on _a_ flow > mobility solution specification. The WG has not adopted a specific document > yet. > >> I've quickly read your spec and this is overlaps with that work. But, I >> do see lot of efforts went into this document, surely some of the work >> around BCE extensions, or the notification messages from LMA ..etc can be >> leveraged. I've issues with the support for shared prefix model, there >> are technical challenges, other than that the approach of solving mobility >> at the granularity of prefixes as what you guys documented is fine with no >> need for new options. > > Could you please be more specific as to what are your issues with the support > for shared prefix model? > >> I agree with this. Currently, we have too much of >> garbage in our solution spec, we have to simplify the approaches and support >> some basic mobility scenarios, such as flow movement at prefix level, the >> presence of natural RA triggers. We need a simple spec. Hopefully, we >> will get there. > > Isn't the fact that there is "too much garbage in [your] solution spec" a > natural outcome of this WG not having a discussion to capture solution > requirements that corresponds to the high level "flow mobility" function? > > The lack of discussion in that space impairs our ability to do good > engineering and is hindering progress. At minimum we need to agree on a common > terminology. For example I do not know what "flow movement at prefix level" or > "natural RA triggers" mean? Could you please be more specific? > >> Please talk to Carlos and the Raj who is shepherding this work as the >> WG chair, and possibly see how this work can be leveraged. > > At this point I do not understand why you are redirecting Tran to Carlos; this > WG has not adopted a specific document. What would be appropriate for now is > for participants to this WG to have a discussion on the list on what are "flow > mobility" solution requirements. That being done, we can have a debate on what > is the best solution fulfilling these requirements. > > --julien From sgundave@cisco.com Mon Sep 20 10:30:24 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68013A6AD5 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:30:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.362 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.362 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.237, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 aS8C9Dr+3WSo for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789203A6AE2 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAPY2l0yrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACiGXGmOZwMhUEEhE6FaoME X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,394,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="239245023" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Sep 2010 17:30:45 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8KHUjxb023817; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:30:45 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:30:45 -0700 Received: from 10.32.246.214 ([10.32.246.214]) by xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:30:44 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:30:42 -0700 From: Sri Gundavelli To: "Laganier, Julien" , Tran Minh Trung Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 Thread-Index: ActW4x3vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZgAANNVY8= In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Sep 2010 17:30:45.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[8EE44560:01CB58E9] Cc: "netext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:30:24 -0000 On 9/20/10 9:11 AM, "Laganier, Julien" wrote: > >> Please talk to Carlos and the Raj who is shepherding this work as the >> WG chair, and possibly see how this work can be leveraged. > > At this point I do not understand why you are redirecting Tran to Carlos; this > WG has not adopted a specific document. What would be appropriate for now is > for participants to this WG to have a discussion on the list on what are "flow > mobility" solution requirements. That being done, we can have a debate on what > is the best solution fulfilling these requirements. > This is probably a question to the chair. There is an editor who is consolidating the different solution specs in this space. It can extend to this doc as well. Off course, one can always challenge the candidate WG doc, if the solution approaches are different .. Sri From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Mon Sep 20 11:47:00 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3523A67D0 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:46:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.428 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 yxVFJoUHatYx for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C181F3A659A for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:46:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o8KIkdJh012772; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:47:01 +0300 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:46:35 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:46:34 +0300 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.88]) by nok-am1mhub-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:46:34 +0200 From: To: , , Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:46:33 +0200 Thread-Topic: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 Thread-Index: ActW4x3vuZUq+2c5XEOo2XezFPUgoAB+TlZgAANNVY8AAqYn9Q== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Sep 2010 18:46:34.0961 (UTC) FILETIME=[26650410:01CB58F4] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netext] Comments & Feedback on the ID: draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:47:00 -0000 On 9/20/10 12:30 PM, "Sri Gundavelli" wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 9/20/10 9:11 AM, "Laganier, Julien" wrote: >=20 >=20 >>=20 >>> Please talk to Carlos and the Raj who is shepherding this work as the >>> WG chair, and possibly see how this work can be leveraged. >>=20 >> At this point I do not understand why you are redirecting Tran to Carlos= ; >> this >> WG has not adopted a specific document. What would be appropriate for no= w is >> for participants to this WG to have a discussion on the list on what are >> "flow >> mobility" solution requirements. That being done, we can have a debate o= n >> what >> is the best solution fulfilling these requirements. >>=20 >=20 > This is probably a question to the chair. There is an editor who is > consolidating the different solution specs in this space. It can extend t= o > this doc as well. Off course, one can always challenge the candidate WG d= oc, > if the solution approaches are different .. Any WG member is free to propose solutions for the work item which is in th= e scope of the charter. At the present time there is no working group I-D on the flow mobility topic. There are multiple I-Ds with similarities and differences. It is upt= o the authors and WG members to eventually conclude on an I-D and move forward. -Raj And just as an FYI, I will be acting as the only chair w.r.t the flow mobility topic since Rajeev is a co-author/contributor. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Sri >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > netext mailing list > netext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext From cjbc@it.uc3m.es Tue Sep 21 15:31:05 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89B323A6A2D for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:31:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.656 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 Xsz8aqjvAanr for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5BB3A69F2 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:30:47 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from [IPv6:::1] (luciernaga.it.uc3m.es [163.117.140.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587B170FC54 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:30:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: netext@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-VK3I5oooAYiyd5wMC9AN" Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:31:07 +0200 Message-ID: <1285108267.7749.373.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.2 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.0.0.1038-17658.000 Subject: [netext] About draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:31:05 -0000 --=-VK3I5oooAYiyd5wMC9AN Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Julien and Raj suggested that people working on flow mobility solutions posted a summary of the requirements of goals of their ongoing work. Authors of draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-flowmob are working on the next revision for the consideration of the WG. The draft has the following goals and requirements: - The goal is to define PMIPv6 extensions that allow to move flows among different simultaneously attaches interfaces of an MN. - Analyze the different scenarios to be supported. We currently include the "shared prefix" and "unique prefix" per physical interface models.=20 - The solution defines the LMA as the controlling entity. The solution defines the signaling between MAG and LMA. The specifics on how the network nodes obtain the policies is out of scope. - The MN is equipped with one logical interface (we don't support flow mobility across different logical interfaces). We are currently working out the details and reaching an agreement among the authors of the draft. As soon as we come up with a consolidated document (hopefully within the next couple of weeks) we'll submit it and ask for feedback to the WG. Thanks, Carlos --=20 Carlos Jes=FAs Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA 4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67 --=-VK3I5oooAYiyd5wMC9AN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkyZMisACgkQNdy6TdFwT2c9BgCgtp+ENKHh3L7yDHP2pB0Zhojc 7IoAnjGd9vNDFWG1XtcG4xUofl35/M6w =MHJH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-VK3I5oooAYiyd5wMC9AN-- From trungtm2909@gmail.com Wed Sep 22 18:22:00 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCF23A6A95 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:22:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.934 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ycQbNQ8Djygp for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73CBB3A6A0D for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so1136471iwn.31 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:22:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QV9yagV+2AwMQaEm9aTNY72mtwhjsU5XfUBXGIteVSY=; b=xUV7OYLAD6LEVX7fHRxcGG192JH4BKDMz1jVzv4Tc6XcYtljjbT807pTX0FuDD73MR ff/F0VuDq+rH41XSq5cfibXWoM+FGuVnYn4YiN+R9OeQG3T5GgriGMSAokF3Lk92U8aQ IM4o1amtRrpJImnmnvjAOpNXc7LTQc4Kl273s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=sA4Xi2A8jbkqwcrhEZ0Ibz+LHwyrPH4/TADiUGOWSA16hoyHvcs6zuYUfkXUixTD7U ybQSVxjBXrW2wi5AcHDN+kEWDGJTLsVDIMXVb9j9kcJyx4dhz3H861oRau8z/3DChVDj 9ca9LwaPm8Dl1ga/2aSlKvg4JqSb4Cc3h9N4Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.182.196 with SMTP id cd4mr967918ibb.191.1285204947415; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: trungtm2909@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.154.200 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:22:27 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Sd4s56ip91N977GxQYxW-qW3xNA Message-ID: From: Tran Minh Trung To: "Laganier, Julien" , netext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [netext] The requirements for supporting flow mobility in PMIPv6 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:22:00 -0000 Hi Julien and all I send again the simple requirements for sporting flow mobility stated in our document: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 1. The network should support shared-prefix model (The Mobile Node's Home Network Prefix should be able to be shared across its attachments) 2. The network should support flow-based routing (The Local Mobility Anchor should be able to bind a particular flow to a Proxy-CoA without affecting other flow using the same HNP) 3. The MN should use a single logical interface to hide all existing physical interfaces. 4. On receiving a downlink traffic flow, the MN should be able to select the same path for sending the uplink traffic flow. If all of the above requirements are satisfied, then the flow mobility can be supported. Without one of them, the flow mobility can not be supported. For the requirement #4, if we amuse that the MN has it own flow policy, then we can just state that: The MN is assumed to be able to selects the most suitable interface for sending an uplink flow. (In our next draft version we may add this text) I hope that it clears enough for discussing about what are simple solution requirements. Regards, TrungTM --=20 Ph.D., Senior Member Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute Standards Research Center 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 305-350, KOREA Tel : +82-42-860-1132,=A0=A0 Fax : +82-42-861-5404 From trungtm2909@gmail.com Wed Sep 22 18:28:19 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89C33A67D1 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:28:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.937 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.937 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 5YTF-VSpYJbm for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F230C3A6876 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:28:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so1141588iwn.31 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:28:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=g+FDqPmOVQZAteVHQ8nBwJXXsYjHP/yY+lUsnXpUUVc=; b=RXeZXhFBgmHtI6I1mEmB1PDNPgqaWeLB9vVjClOeA/oDts3B34P/omqiBcNaXaRbQe KyRKp3kFMNatRgZUwXSkp1pa6a1xJt8KXIso691CW6CXflC7q2DId2YTsVoEU1K7RLDH QEBcOKwm2PHMwcFHmNuIyO2v7FefBafD+gDHk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=BAPWWOgQJVL9U4ZOr4O25KNYtv4w2Lg+LWjGn6Rs1wELmgNr+I5zANOM9nPc9Y9tTR 49Yu/D3K5Ge1zzo4asU9xY2sPPMRmkKnULG2orMYMHEQePk4oRNjHwPDhNP3MWF9gfoZ nJS7XGbX8IaQXNTo/hdwKa+QEAqFmAmLdmTsg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.35.8 with SMTP id n8mr1070279ibd.78.1285205324576; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: trungtm2909@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.154.200 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:28:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:28:44 +0900 X-Google-Sender-Auth: s0gOwn_2b9CLtPl6QTMs9a5SjDE Message-ID: From: Tran Minh Trung To: netext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [netext] The requirements for supporting flow mobility in PMIPv6 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:28:20 -0000 Hi Julien and all I send again the simple requirements for sporting flow mobility stated in our document: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-trung-netext-flow-mobility-support-00 1. The network should support shared-prefix model (The Mobile Node's Home Network =A0Prefix should be able to be shared across its attachments) 2. The network should support flow-based routing (The Local Mobility Anchor should be able to bind a particular flow to a Proxy-CoA without affecting other flow using the same HNP) 3. The MN should use a single logical interface to hide all existing physical interfaces. 4. On receiving a downlink traffic flow, the MN should be able to select the same path for sending the uplink traffic flow. If all of the above requirements are satisfied, then the flow mobility can be supported. Without one of them, the flow mobility can not be supported. For the requirement #4, if we amuse that the MN has it own flow policy, then we can just state that: The MN is assumed to be able to selects the most suitable interface for sending an uplink flow. (In our next draft version we may add this text) I hope that it clears enough for discussing about what are simple solution requirements. Regards, TrungTM -- Ph.D., Senior Member Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute Standards Research Center 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 305-350, KOREA Tel : +82-42-860-1132,=A0=A0 Fax : +82-42-861-5404 --=20 Ph.D., Senior Member Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute Standards Research Center 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 305-350, KOREA Tel : +82-42-860-1132,=A0=A0 Fax : +82-42-861-5404 From Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Thu Sep 23 08:33:28 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021373A6B21 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:33:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 MdqTJWWgC+jn for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AADF3A6812 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id o8NFWWCJ009601 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:32:51 +0300 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:32:45 +0300 Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:32:40 +0300 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 18:32:36 +0300 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-03.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.108]) by nok-am1mhub-04.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) with mapi; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:32:35 +0200 From: To: Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:32:32 +0200 Thread-Topic: WG LC: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps Thread-Index: ActbNInjNHChRXm5PUiAQAde/uV4OA== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2010 15:32:36.0773 (UTC) FILETIME=[8CBBB550:01CB5B34] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Subject: [netext] WG LC: draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:33:28 -0000 Hello, This is a working group last call for WG I-D : PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement Please review the I-D and submit your comments. The WG LC will close on October 8th, 2010. The I-D will be progressed for publication as an Informational RFC. -Chairs From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Tue Sep 21 10:25:48 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietf.org Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6BD533A659C; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:25:48 -0700 (PDT) To: yokota@kddilabs.jp, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, sri.gundavelli@cisco.com, Xiangsong.Cui@huawei.com From: IETF Secretariat Message-Id: <20100921172548.6BD533A659C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:04:02 -0700 Cc: netext@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [netext] IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-netext-redirect-03 X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:25:48 -0000 Dear Hidetoshi Yokota, Jouni Korhonen, Sri Gundavelli, Xiangsong Cui: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Runtime LMA Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6" (draft-ietf-netext-redirect) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2010-09-18 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1405/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-netext-redirect-03." The IETF Secretariat From root@core3.amsl.com Wed Sep 29 02:15:03 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netext@ietf.org Delivered-To: netext@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id DF5E33A6D92; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:15:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100929091502.DF5E33A6D92@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: netext@ietf.org Subject: [netext] I-D Action:draft-ietf-netext-redirect-04.txt X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:15:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Network-Based Mobility Extensions Working Group of the IETF. Title : Runtime LMA Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : J. Korhonen, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-netext-redirect-04.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2010-09-29 This document describes a runtime Local Mobility Anchor assignment functionality and corresponding mobility options for Proxy Mobile IPv6. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netext-redirect-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-netext-redirect-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-09-29020249.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart--