Subject: [Monami6] mcoas

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:01:54 +0200

Hi Ryuji et al.,

I have been reading the Multiple CoAs draft and i found it very 
interesting.

I was wondering if you have considered the possibility of including 
along with the BID information, information about the preference of the 
associated CoA. I mean, i think that it may be interesting that the MN 
can express to the HA and the CN which CoAs it prefers to use when 
receiving packets. Including such info in the BU would give hints to 
the HA and the CN about the preferences of the MN.

This can be extended a bit more, and also it could include some 
information about which flow it prefers to receive in each different 
CoA. For that, flow information need also to be included in the BU.

Regards, marcelo

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

---

From: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:05:12 +0200

Hi Marcelo & Ryuji,

As Marcelo pointed out, it's  also interesting to include some
inteligence to BU when registering muliple CoA. Therefore, MN can inform
its preferences. 

Is there any specific reason that mcoa draft does not consider it? As
listed in monami6 page, there are also few drafts that address how to
set preferences. They use BU to send these preferences. E.g,

draft-nomadv6-mobileip-filters Filters for Mobile IPv6 Bindings 
draft-montavont-mobileip-ha-filtering Home Agent Filtering for Mobile
IPv6 

Regards

Koojana
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of marcelo 
>bagnulo braun
>Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:02 PM
>To: Ryuji Wakikawa
>Cc: Monami6 BOF proposal
>Subject: [Monami6] mcoas
>
>
>Hi Ryuji et al.,
>
>[email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>

---

From: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:05:12 +0200

Hi Marcelo & Ryuji,

Regards

Koojana

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:31:01 +0900

Hi Koojana, Marcelo,

Well, this can be included, and, I presonaly think we should investigate
how to merge in ideas from other drafts. But the answer to your question
is very simple: as long as a draft is a personal submission, it's kind
of inappropriate to merge in ideas from other drafts. So, if Monami6
becomes a WG, and if we agree with the work item "registration of
multiple CoAs", we may also decide to add such kind of features.

This is a reasonable thing to do if this is the consensus reached on
this ML, and we can conclude this in Paris.

Thierry

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:05:12 +0200
"Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> inteligence to BU when registering muliple CoA. Therefore, MN can
> inform its preferences. 
> 
> >associated CoA. I mean, i think that it may be interesting that the
> >MN can express to the HA and the CN which CoAs it prefers to use when

-- 
Thierry Ernst, PhD
WIDE, Jun Murai Lab., Keio University, Japan
Nautilus6 Chair: http://www.nautilus6.org
Web: http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/
T:+81-44-580-1600 F:+81-44-580-1437
--

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:23:39 +0200

FWIW my sugestion didn't came from another draft, but as a natural 
thought from the reading of the mcoas draft

of course, since it is an individual submission, the authors can do as 
they please with my sugestion :-)

regards, marcelo

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:23:39 +0200

regards, marcelo

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:25:41 +0900

Hello Marcelo

> I have been reading the Multiple CoAs draft and i found it very  

thanks

> along with the BID information, information about the preference of  
> the associated CoA. I mean, i think that it may be interesting that  
> the MN can express to the HA and the CN which CoAs it prefers to  
> use when receiving packets. Including such info in the BU would  
> give hints to the HA and the CN about the preferences of the MN.

Yes, we did. If you look at the version 00 and 01 of this draft,  
there is field for interface's priority.

> information about which flow it prefers to receive in each  
> different CoA. For that, flow information need also to be included  
> in the BU.

Right. However, we dropped the feature to standardize mcoa ASAP.  (it  
was not achieved yet though)
What we tried here is that separation of multiple tunnel setup and  
flow distribution.
We concentrate to create multiple paths for MN/MR and leave flow  
distribution in this draft.
We may use flow filtering or some mechanism which multi6 will define  
for flow distribution.

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:31:33 +0900

Hello Koojana

On 2005/07/21, at 6:05, Koojana Kuladinithi wrote:

> inform

Right, this was considered in our early version of the mcoa draft.

> set preferences. They use BU to send these preferences. E.g,

There are several ways to distribute flow to multiple paths.
Like Nomad6 or Hesham's one, some MN/R can carry the preferences by  
MIP6 layer, but
some applications may want to exchange the preference on application  
layer.
In addition, we may apply a mechanism of shim6 for this purpose.
(I'm not sure they are working on flow distribution, but they must be)

If we can separate standardizing "multiple path setup" and "flow  
distribution" separately,
MN/MR or applications can utilize any preference exchange. For easy  
preference exchange,
BID can be used by applications as preference expression .

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:41:03 +0900

Hi

With mcoa , we tried to setup only multiple paths (i.e. multihoming  
configuration) for MN and MR,
not to exchange preferences.
Mcoa is simple small extension of MIP/NEMO.

If we include flow distribution and preference exchange in the draft,
mcoa feature can not be used with other flow distribution mechanism  
or preference exchange mechanism.
I believe there are several ways to distribute flows onto the  
multihoming configuration.

For example, some operator statically configures the preference at MN  
and HA.
In this case, we don't need any explicit preference exchange.
Alternatively, as Marcelo proposed, priority may be used to decide  
one interface for communication.

Should I bring the priority feature back to the draft? :-)

ryuji

ps. what's the difference between [email-masked] and  
[email-masked]?

On 2005/07/21, at 17:23, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> of course, since it is an individual submission, the authors can do  
> as they please with my sugestion :-)
>
> regards, marcelo
>>>> different

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:41:03 +0900

Hi

ryuji