Subject: RE: [Monami6] flow bindings are not for NEMO

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:19:54 -0800

> In MIP6, the mobile node has multiple interfaces and can distribute  
 > flow to multiple paths.
 > However, in the NEMO case, intermediate node (i.e. MR) has multiple  
 > paths to HA.
 > Since this is NEMO, end node is not aware of multiple paths between  
 > MR-HA. (No RO and intermediate router, MR).

=> Right, which is out of scope for this WG and is no different to a
case where a MN is connected to an AR that has multiple paths to the
Internet.

 > 
 > Therefore, it is no way for LFN/MNN to know what kind of 
 > paths which  
 > MR manages.
 > As a result, there is no way for LFN/MNN to tell the 
 > preference to MR  
 > (since LFN cannot know the paths condition of MR).

=> Of course, but I'm sure you'd agree with me that it's a no brainer
for the MR to signal to the HA that it wants all TCP traffic directed to
CoA1 and other traffic directed to CoA2. I don't understand what is so
controversial about this.

 > 
 > If Monami6 wants to support end-end policy exchange in 
 > general, NEMO  
 > is very special scenario.
 > We need additional schemes such as:
 > - MR advertises the egress interfaces info.
 > - LFN updates its preference to MR.

=> All interesting ideas but not for monami to specify.

 > To me, these feature needs a lot of work.
 > Within the current charter, we should stick to the static 
 > case for NEMO.
 > Then, we may think of above feature when the Monami6 finish the  
 > current charter items.

=> I don't think we need to stick to anything for nemo. It is none of
our business how the MR decides to forward traffic and whether the LFN
can or cannot tell it. As long as the MR is authorised to forward
packets to this prefix, it is free to route packets as it sees fit. 

Until someone actually explains to me what the problem is I'm afraid
there is nothing more I can contribute to this topic.

Hesham

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:01:47 +0900

Hesham

> case where a MN is connected to an AR that has multiple paths to the

OK, but I'm not sure we made this in out of scope.

> => All interesting ideas but not for monami to specify.

If these deal with policy between MR-LFN, it may be related to  
Monami6 somehow.

> => I don't think we need to stick to anything for nemo. It is none of

In Monami6, solution should be for both MIp6 and NEMO.

> packets to this prefix, it is free to route packets as it sees fit.

Yes, agree.
You should know that  I am in same position with you  :-)

> there is nothing more I can contribute to this topic.

What you can do is to state that dynamic policy exchange between MR- 
LFN is out of scope:-)

regards,
ryuji

---

From: "Benjamin Lim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:14:13 +0800

Hi, Hesham, 

>  > If Monami6 wants to support end-end policy exchange in  > 
> general, NEMO  > is very special scenario.
[Ben] IMHO, it maybe. A MNN in the moible network can configure multiple
address based on the prefix(es) advertised by the multi-interface MR and
thus the MNN may want to use the flow binding solution to help bind flows.
Since the MNN is behind the MR, it has no knowledge of the network
characteristcs to help it in performing flow bindings. Thus, by allowing the
MNN to know egress info, it helps support the flow binding soultion in terms
of NEMO. Since flow/binding policies exchange is a work item in Monami6,
this might be a vaild work item to consider IMHO.

Regards,
Benjamin Lim