Subject: Re: [Monami6] draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03 implementation

From: "Niko A. Fikouras" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:09:43 +0200

Hi Umar,

I have heard from Asanga that you have completed the implementation. 
Congratulations on your good work.
Have you been able to implement options 3 & 4 from section 4 (Protocol 
operations):

   Option 3: Source Port - Min, Source Port - Max

   Option 4: Source Port - Min, Source Port - Max, Dst Port - Min, Dst
   Port - Max

To be more precise. Is it possible to define a filter using ports 
without the presence of the protocol type.

Thanks in advance
niko

[email-masked] wrote:

>Hello everybody at Monami6,
>
>I am implementing Flow Management support in nemo-mcoa following the
>draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03 draft. I am using nemo-0.2-mcoa from
>Nautilus as a basis for my implementation. I have succeeded in implementing a
>basic flow management support in nemo-0.2-mcoa. I will continue sharing my
>experiences in this list.
>
>One of the issues to report is that in the PRO field in fid mobility option. It
>is said in the draft that it is a 4 bit field (section 3.1) and hence can carry
>unsigned integers from 0 to 15. However the draft also says value 255 should be
>put to PRO field in order to "Remove a flow binding". Since 255 can not be
>accomodated in a 4 bit PRO field I have used 15 (the maximum 4 bit number)
>currently in my implementation and it's working fine.
>
>   Regards,
>   Umar Toseef
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Monami6 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>
>  
>

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:04:51 +0100

Hi Niko,
        Thanks for the compliments! As far as the current implementation is
concerned we have not implemented Option:3 and Option:4 which means specifying
Source/Destination port range without mentioning protocol is not yet supported.
Actually we are using  ip6tables's marking functionality to mark ip6 packets.
And ip6tables does not allow specifying port range without defining protocol!

        On the other hand if we consider it conceptually, some protocols work
with ports like tcp,udp etc but others do not require any ports e.g. ICMPv6. So
it seems logical to have protocol mentioned when you want filter traffic on some
ports.

        What do you think about this ?

        Regards,
        Umar Toseef

-----------------------------------------------
Hi Umar,

To be more precise. Is it possible to define a filter using ports without the
presence of the protocol type.

Thanks in advance
niko

umr at comnets.uni-bremen.de wrote:

    Nautilus as a basis for my implementation. I have succeeded in implementing
a

    One of the issues to report is that in the PRO field in fid mobility option.
It
    is said in the draft that it is a 4 bit field (section 3.1) and hence can
carry
    unsigned integers from 0 to 15. However the draft also says value 255 should
be
    put to PRO field in order to "Remove a flow binding". Since 255 can not be
    accomodated in a 4 bit PRO field I have used 15 (the maximum 4 bit number)
    currently in my implementation and it's working fine.

      Regards,
      Umar Toseef