headers
Julien Laganier | 2 Jun 2009 13:21

Re: [MEXT] LMA behavior for HI status unknown (was Re: Binding Revocation almost ready for IESG)

Hello Ahmad,

I think we'd be better with a new revision.

Thanks.

--julien

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Ahmad Muhanna <amuhanna <at> nortel.com> wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
>
> Regards,
> Ahmad
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:vijay <at> wichorus.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:56 PM
>> To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10)
>> Cc: mext; Julien Laganier
>> Subject: LMA behavior for HI status unknown (was Re: Binding
>> Revocation almost ready for IESG)
>>
>> Hi Ahmad,
>>
>> I am going to split the emails into two, since we are dealing
>> with two issues.
>>
>> Ahmad Muhanna wrote:
>>
>> >>>> But what should the MAG behavior be when it receives the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ahmad Muhanna | 2 Jun 2009 13:56
Favicon

Re: [MEXT] LMA behavior for HI status unknown (was Re: Binding Revocation almost ready for IESG)

Hi Julien,

Sure, will spin a new revision, hopefully quickly. 

Regards,
Ahmad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julien Laganier [mailto:julien.laganier.ietf <at> googlemail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 6:22 AM
> To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10)
> Cc: Vijay Devarapalli; mext
> Subject: Re: LMA behavior for HI status unknown (was Re: 
> Binding Revocation almost ready for IESG)
> 
> Hello Ahmad,
> 
> I think we'd be better with a new revision.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --julien
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Ahmad Muhanna 
> <amuhanna <at> nortel.com> wrote:
> > Hi Vijay,
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ahmad
> >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Julien Laganier | 2 Jun 2009 14:42

Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flow bindings

Yuri,

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Yuri Ismailov
<yuri.ismailov <at> ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hesham,
>
> This is nice story and makes some sense for the discssion, however some
> details are ommited. In your adventure with the helpdesk, it (the helpdesk)
> is a third party service and thus your conclusions make sence. Think of the
> situation when superior of a heldesk person will tell him/her to check
> access point in some room. Would it be the same reaction? I assume not. By
> that I mean that if, for example, I'll install home agent in my home
> network, I can make it know anything I want about MN, and more intresting is
> that how I will do it, does not require any standardization. In other words,
> I'm superior of my HA.

I have nothing against being the superior or having one, but I'm a bit
lost with the point of the analogy...

How do you make your HA know that the address XYZ your MN just SLAAC'd
at the starbucks downdown is assigned towards on a 54Mbs WiFi link?
Are you driving back to home to configure appropriately your HA while
the MN stays at starbucks?

> This situation is not unthinkable, I personally believe that this is much
> more efficient way of using HA fnctionality as opposed to big service
> providers who will have to fight with scalability and performance. However,
> one does not exclude another.
>
> Difference between policies and rules is a convertion step. Is there any
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
pierrick.seite | 2 Jun 2009 16:11

Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flowbindings


Hi all,

Please see inline comment.

Regards,
Pierrick 

> ________________________________________
> De : mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] De la part de
> Yuri Ismailov
> Envoyé : vendredi 29 mai 2009 09:35
> À : Hesham Soliman; mext
> Objet : Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of
> flowbindings
> 
> Hesham,
> This is nice story and makes some sense for the discssion, however some
> details are ommited. In your adventure with the helpdesk, it (the
> helpdesk) is a third party service and thus your conclusions make sence.
> Think of the situation when superior of a heldesk person will tell him/her
> to check access point in some room. Would it be the same reaction? I
> assume not. By that I mean that if, for example, I'll install home agent
> in my home network, I can make it know anything I want about MN, and more
> intresting is that how I will do it, does not require any standardization.
> In other words, I'm superior of my HA.
> This situation is not unthinkable, I personally believe that this is much
> more efficient way of using HA fnctionality as opposed to big service
> providers who will have to fight with scalability and performance.
> However, one does not exclude another.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Behcet Sarikaya | 2 Jun 2009 16:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flow bindings


It seems like some people are drawing paralels with PMIPv6 here.
I think that we shouldn't because in mext we have full MN input, e.g. MCoA draft is a good example. MCoA draft
is now in IESG processing status.

Cheers,

Behcet

 

----- Original Message ----
From: Julien Laganier <julien.laganier.ietf <at> googlemail.com>
To: Yuri Ismailov <yuri.ismailov <at> ericsson.com>
Cc: mext <mext <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 7:42:23 AM
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flow bindings

Yuri,

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Yuri Ismailov
<yuri.ismailov <at> ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hesham,
>
> This is nice story and makes some sense for the discssion, however some
> details are ommited. In your adventure with the helpdesk, it (the helpdesk)
> is a third party service and thus your conclusions make sence. Think of the
> situation when superior of a heldesk person will tell him/her to check
> access point in some room. Would it be the same reaction? I assume not. By
> that I mean that if, for example, I'll install home agent in my home
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Yuri Ismailov | 2 Jun 2009 16:17
Picon
Favicon

Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flow bindings

Julien,

Probably some missunderstanding comes from the different scope of viewing at the general deployment of
MIP protocol(s)
I'm trying (whether successful or not?) not to restrict the view to just flow binding as such but to look at
somewhat bigger context where MIP support is a part of the whole, playing important role.

> How do you make your HA know that the address XYZ your MN just SLAAC'd at the starbucks downdown is assigned
towards on a 54Mbs WiFi link?
> Are you driving back to home to configure appropriately your HA while the MN stays at starbucks?

The key is that one may use (I definetly would) applciation level to communicate any kind of parameters
between HA and MN. I do not mean routing rules. Basically anything else. If one finds that the fact of MN
being attached to 54Mbs WiFi link is useful information for HA, then there is nothing preventing to send
this information to HA without involving MIP.
Next important thing, in my view, is that the logic generating this or that set of routing rules whether
implemented in MN or HA or both has nothing to do with MIP. This logic is about how to choose an interface for a
particular flow and in theory may be delegated to a third party node (do not think this is a good idea
though). This is the reason why I don't entirely agree with your statement:

> I believe there's a valid reason which is called protocol layering.
> Rules dealing with choice of a MIPv6 Care-of address do belong to the
> MIPv6 layer. Policies regarding which access technology to use for a given app/service/etc. do not
belong to that layer

Basically rules is instantiation of policies and as I see it, first the choice of access is made, secondly an
IP address is pointed out, but not because the IP address is suitable for a flow or belongs to IP layer, but
because it turned out to be configured on the suitable access. Thus, I would not state that rules are
dealing with any kind of choice, on the other hand rules are the result of choice.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nicolas Montavont | 2 Jun 2009 17:46

Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flowbindings

Hi Pierrick,

On Jun 2, 2009, at 4:11 PM, <pierrick.seite <at> orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Please see inline comment.
>
> Regards,
> Pierrick
>
>> ________________________________________
>> De : mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] De la  
>> part de
>> Yuri Ismailov
>> Envoyé : vendredi 29 mai 2009 09:35
>> À : Hesham Soliman; mext
>> Objet : Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of
>> flowbindings
>>
>> Hesham,
>> This is nice story and makes some sense for the discssion, however  
>> some
>> details are ommited. In your adventure with the helpdesk, it (the
>> helpdesk) is a third party service and thus your conclusions make  
>> sence.
>> Think of the situation when superior of a heldesk person will tell  
>> him/her
>> to check access point in some room. Would it be the same reaction? I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
George Tsirtsis | 2 Jun 2009 17:54

Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flowbindings

FWIW I also fully agree with this as well as with Hesham's main points.

Although I understand that some people find the prospect of an HA
micromanaging uplink flows interesting at an academic level, I do not
think anyone would seriously consider this in a practical deployment
for reasons that have already been exhaustively articulated.

Regards
George

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Nicolas Montavont <ietf <at> montavont.net> wrote:
> Hi Pierrick,
>
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 4:11 PM, <pierrick.seite <at> orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Please see inline comment.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pierrick
>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> De : mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] De la part de
>>> Yuri Ismailov
>>> Envoyé : vendredi 29 mai 2009 09:35
>>> À : Hesham Soliman; mext
>>> Objet : Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of
>>> flowbindings
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Behcet Sarikaya | 2 Jun 2009 18:19
Picon
Favicon

Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flowbindings


First it was:
No HA can not do, only MN can do it.

Now it suddenly became:
Yes it is possible but academic :).

Regards,

Behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: George Tsirtsis <tsirtsis <at> googlemail.com>
To: Nicolas Montavont <ietf <at> montavont.net>
Cc: mext <at> ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:54:50 AM
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flowbindings

FWIW I also fully agree with this as well as with Hesham's main points.

Although I understand that some people find the prospect of an HA
micromanaging uplink flows interesting at an academic level, I do not
think anyone would seriously consider this in a practical deployment
for reasons that have already been exhaustively articulated.

Regards
George

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Nicolas Montavont <ietf <at> montavont.net> wrote:
> Hi Pierrick,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
George Tsirtsis | 2 Jun 2009 18:22

Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flowbindings

A lot of things are theoretically possible.
We are not here, however, to standardise all theoretical possibilities.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Behcet Sarikaya
<behcetsarikaya <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> First it was:
> No HA can not do, only MN can do it.
>
>
> Now it suddenly became:
> Yes it is possible but academic :).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: George Tsirtsis <tsirtsis <at> googlemail.com>
> To: Nicolas Montavont <ietf <at> montavont.net>
> Cc: mext <at> ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:54:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flowbindings
>
> FWIW I also fully agree with this as well as with Hesham's main points.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane