Subject: RE: [Monami6] timeslot at IETF68

From: "Benjamin Lim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:06:46 +0800

Hi,

[snip]
> Usually it's the other way round. In order for people to prepare for
> the discussion, a draft is useful, and it's too late now to produce a
> new one. So, is there a draft to read, if no draft, a report or
> something ? [/snip]

Currently, no documentation is available for the WG. The motivation for such
presentation is there exist  use case in which a multihomed host requires
additional help in order to perform the flow filtering when attached to a
multihomed router.

The following can be used by the audience to get some information on what
will be presented.

Consider the following scenario (as mentioned by Heikki)

                                              +------+
                     3G Cellular       |         |
                                  /--------|  I      |     +----------+
                  CoA-3G /             |  N    |----| HA-MR |
         +----+     +----+             |  T    |     +----------+
         | MN |----| MR |            |  E     |
         +----+     +----+             |  R    |     +----------+
            CoA-WLAN \             |  N   |----| HA-MN |
                                   \--------|  E    |      +---------+
                         802.11g         |  T    |
                                              +-----+

Here, the Mobile Router, MR, has two different egress interfaces: a 3G
cellular interface with a Care-of Address of CoA-3G, and a 802.11g interface
with a Care-of Address of CoA-WLAN.  A Visiting Mobile Node, MN, is
currently attached to the mobile network of MR.  HA-MR is the home agent of
MR and HA-MN is the home agent of MN.

"Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6" (draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-02) aims
to bind flows by introducing a new option, known as Flow Identification
option, in the Binding Update and Binding Acknowledgement messages.  With
this, a Mobile Node can bind one flow to an interface while maintaining the
reception of other flows on another interface.  Flow bindings would
therefore be useful in cases where the Mobile Node is connected to different
access technologies with different characteristics.

However, when we apply the flow filtering mechanism stated in Monami6 to
NEMO, the fact that the tunnel ends at the Mobile Router whereas the traffic
ends at Mobile Network Node cause problem with flow filtering.  On one hand,
while the Mobile Router has multiple egress paths, it cannot perform
efficient flow filtering since the Mobile Router has no way to know the
traffic requirements of Mobile Network Node's flows.  On the other hand, the
Mobile Network Node has no way of knowing the existence of multiple paths
(and their network characteristics) to start flow filtering.

Thierry mentioned in the ML that this issue is also being worked out by the
automotive industry, within ISO TC204 WG16 (using SNMPv3). The solution is
part of the CALM standard which is supposed to be deployed in vehicles for
ITS applications. They do not necessarily need an IETF standard, and don't
even try, though they do reuse some of the existing standards like NEMO
Basic Support, etc.

Furthermore, Alex highlighted that the NEMO WG is rechartering to identify
requirements for Route Optimization.  One possible requirement may be that
MR sends to VMN what are the subnets to which it connects.  At that point
the flow bindings should be established by VMN somehow. This may be a
solution to the problem in which VMN knows nothing about MR decisions.

Because packets tunneling and traffic session terminate at different nodes
in a mobile network, the flow binding mechanism currently developed by the
Monami6 WG cannot be used without modification. Thus, the purpose of the
presentation is to attempt to gather requirements to provide a suitable
solution to be adopted by the flow binding mechanism designed for Monami6.

Regards,
Benjamin Lim

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

---

From: "Benjamin Lim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 17:44:10 +0800

Sorry for the triple post. Some issues with the mail server.

Regards,
Benjamin Lim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Lim [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:07 PM
> To: 'Monami6 WG'
> Subject: RE: [Monami6] timeslot at IETF68
> 
> Hi,
> 
> [snip]