Subject: [Int-area] Re: Lifting up a filter discussion from Monami6

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:51:10 +0100

Dear all,

I forgot to let you know that as a matter of summarizing this
discussion and hopefully conclude it, we have schedule a slot in the
Monami6 WG on Monday PM.

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/agenda/monami6.txt

8. Summary of Feb. discussion on INT-area ........................ 15 mins
   Chairs
   draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03.txt
   draft-larsson-monami6-filter-rules
   draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow-distribution-policy-02.txt
   Topics:
   - mechanism to exchange preferences, not necessarily one needed
     for the determination of path
   - 1 sol fits all vs 1 tailored sol per protocol
   - MNN-MR Preference Settings .
   - NEMO RO and flow bindings for NEMO tightly related ?
   - having several exchange mechanisms, but a common format ?
   - host<->router and router<->router exchanges of filter rules, 
   - distinction between filter rules and policies/preferences

Regards,
Thierry.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:59:42 +0200
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>I would like to lift up one issue from the Monami6 WG
>to a more general discussion. Monami6 is developing an
>extension to Mobile IPv6 / Nemo so that a mobile node could
>register its presence in multiple locations simultaneously.
>One of things that they expect to be able to do is to control
>what traffic goes to what care-of address; this flow to this
>address, and the other flow to that other address. Mobile nodes
>can obviously decide by themselves what outgoing interface to use.
>However, in order for a home agent to deal with return traffic
>properly, the mobile node has to tell it what policy to
>employ.
>
>The working group has debated between a number of different
>approaches for doing this. In one approach, draft-soliman-
>monami6-flow-binding the mobile node adds a filter to a Mobile
>IPv6 Binding Update to tell what traffic should use this binding.
>Another approach, draft-larsson-monami6-filter-rules, decouples
>the policy exchange from the mobility protocol. The policies are
>exchanged at a different time (typically earlier) and carried by a
>different protocol (in this case over UDP). Yet another draft,
>draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow-distribution-policy also separates
>the mobility protocol and policy transfer, and carries
>the policies in HTTP.
>
>Monami6 should of course decide how they want to design this.
>But this may be an interesting debate from a more generic point
>of view. Do we have input for them? For instance, are there needs
>in HIP/Shim6/Mobike space for similar functionality? Should the
>designs be tailored for each of these situations? Is there some
>advantage or disadvantage in looking at a generic solution?
>Would a generic solution be doable?
>
>Without going into too much detail about the specific proposals
>it seems that there are actually a number of different topics here:
>- carrier protocol choice
>- policy container format
>- timing of the policy exchange
>- securing the transfer
>- etc
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Jari
>

-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD 
INRIA Rocquencourt France Project-Team IMARA / JRU LARA
http://www.lara.prd.fr +33 1 39 63 59 30 (office)

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area