Subject: [Monami6] New draft submitted: draft-park-mis-00.txt

From: 박철현 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:58:26 +0900

Dear all,

We submitted a new draft about interface selection framework in a
multihomed mobile router. 

A URL for the internet draft is http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
park-mis-00.txt

Here is the abstract:

“In this draft, we discuss how to make use of multiple interfaces in a

single mobile router.  We will focus on the scenario in which each

interface is attached to different access network.  Especially, we

propose how a mobile router selects proper interfaces to provide

services to different traffic flows.  We suggest two methods to do

that.  First we suggest a new option carried in IPv6 hop-by-hop

options header, and we will use the flow label field in the IPv6 main

header.  The flow label field is used to distinguish different

packets belonging to different traffic flows.  New option contains a

service type value and a preference value.  A servie type value is

used for traffic classification, and a preference value enables

mobile router to control the traffic in detail.  The propsed multiple

interface selection mechanism in a multihomed mobile router (MMR)

chooses an appropriate interface for each flow, depending on traffic

requirements and access network characteristics.”

Any feedback is welcome, of course.

Regards,

Park.

Chulhyun Park, MS student

Multimedia and mobile communications Lab. 

Seoul University

 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]

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

---

From: Michael Ye <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:37:42 +0800

Hi Park,
    
In secton 4.2 of this draft,Option length is three.I don't know if it is
appropriate.
 
    Sevice type hint four packets,just in section 4.2.1.
        But if there is a new type packet, you will have to change the
Sevice type or add one value to the Sevice type。
    So I suggest that you use a abstract model value for sevice type instead
of actual type. 
 
BR,
Michael

  _____  

From: ??? [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Monami6] New draft submitted: draft-park-mis-00.txt

Dear all,

We submitted a new draft about interface selection framework in a multihomed
mobile router. 

A URL for the internet draft is
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-park-mis-00.txt

Here is the abstract:

 

Regards,

Park.

Seoul University

---

From: "Chulhyun Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:33:36 +0900

Hi Michael, thanks for your comment.

I’m afraid that somewhat you confused.

The option type field and the option length field are parts of “option”,
which will be carried in an IPv6 hop-by-hop options header or an IPv6
destination options header. The option type field in an option is used to
distinguish options from each other, so we cannot use the field for other
purpose. 

And we specified that the service type value from 0 to 3 matches each of 4
traffic classes. 

If any additional service type needed, you can use a reserved value.

Regards, 

Park.

Seoul University

  _____  

From: Michael Ye [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:38 AM
To: 'Monami6 WG'
Cc: 'Chulhyun Park'
Subject: RE: [Monami6] New draft submitted: draft-park-mis-00.txt

Hi Park,

    So I suggest that you use a abstract model value for sevice type
instead of actual type. 

BR,

Michael

  _____  

Dear all,

Here is the abstract:

 

Regards,

Park.

Seoul University

---

From: Michael Ye <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:04:54 +0800

Hi Park,
    Traffic control option is option of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header.
In section 4.3 of  RFC2460,
 
Options              Variable-length field, of length such that the
                        complete Hop-by-Hop Options header is an integer
                        multiple of 8 octets long.  Contains one or more
                        TLV-encoded options, as described in section
                        4.2.

BR,
Michael

  _____  

From: Chulhyun Park [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Michael Ye'
Subject: RE: [Monami6] New draft submitted: draft-park-mis-00.txt

 

Regards, 

Park.

Seoul University

  _____  

 

Hi Park,

BR,

Michael

  _____  

Dear all,

Here is the abstract:

 

Regards,

Park.

Seoul University

---

From: "Chulhyun Park" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:16:22 +0900

I made a mistake in Fig.3 of my draft : The option type field should be 8
bits long.

Anyway, I cannot understand what you meant exactly. Can you give me more
detailed question?

Seoul University

  _____  

From: Michael Ye [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:05 PM
To: 'Chulhyun Park'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Monami6] New draft submitted: draft-park-mis-00.txt

Hi Park,

BR,

Michael

  _____  

 

Regards, 

Park.

Seoul University

  _____  

 

Hi Park,

BR,

Michael

  _____  

Dear all,

Here is the abstract:

 

Regards,

Park.

Seoul University