Subject: RE: [Monami6] Acceptdraft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-04.txtasMonami6WG Document

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:39:08 -0500

> At the same time, all the drafts that wanted to add policies
 > > did it in the most appropriate way for their specific 
 > applications. 
 > > Examples are bicastng, flow movement drafts ...etc. So , 
 > my question
 > > is, where does this draft fit?
 > 
 > you should build upon the base draft (that allows multiple CoAs).
 > bicasting, flow movement draft, etc.. can have their own mechanism
 > to setup policies, but the extensions to support multiple CoAs in
 > the binding updates and binding cache should be in just one
 > specification. here I am not necessarily talking about
 > draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-04.txt. we need a base spec
 > that specifies the extensions.

=> I understand the logic and it sounds reasonable but it's
not yet clear to me that this will work efficiently for the different
use cases.

Hesham

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

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

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

---

From: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:22:18 +0100

Hi,

> > At the same time, all the drafts that wanted to add
>policies  > > did it in the most appropriate way for their specific
> > applications.
> > you should build upon the base draft (that allows multiple
>CoAs).  > bicasting, flow movement draft, etc.. can have their
>own mechanism  > to setup policies, but the extensions to 
>support multiple CoAs in  > the binding updates and binding 
>cache should be in just one  > specification. here I am not 
>necessarily talking about  > 
>draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-04.txt. we need a base 
>spec  > that specifies the extensions.
>
>=> I understand the logic and it sounds reasonable but it's not yet 
>clear to me that this will work efficiently for the different use 
>cases.
>

Monami6 charter talks abt two std track for following,  

1. A protocol extension to Mobile IPv6 (RFC 3775) and NEMO Basic Support
(RFC 3963) to support the registration of multiple Care-of Addresses at
a given Home Agent address

2. A "Flow/binding policies exchange" solution for an exchange of
policies from the mobile host/router to the Home Agent and from the Home
Agent to the mobile host/router influencing the choice of the Care-of
Address and Home Agent address

Mapping these requirements to the drafts that are being discussed,

For the first -> We can discuss a base specification for MCoA
registrations (like in draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-04.txt) for
this. One use case of this is to use MCoAs as a back up solutions

For the second -> This addresses the best way to utilise multiple CoAs.
The different policies and how they apply are discussed in flow movment,
nomadv6 & flow filtering drafts.

Somehow, the above two solutions are dependant on each other. Without
having a solution for the registration of MCoAs, no use of Flow/binding
policies excahnge. On the other way, without having "Flow/binding
policies excahnge", MCoA registrations will not gain lots of benefits.

IMHO, the above seperation is better first to finalise the base
specification for MCoA registration and then build the policies on top
of that. -> This was Vijay's point .  

On the other hand, considering the use of MCoAs -> I feel whether we
should have a combined solution for this? I guess this was the Hesham's
point

Is there any other reason to separate these two items?

What others think about this?

Koojana

> > [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
> > 
>
>This email may contain confidential and privileged material
>for the sole use  of the intended recipient.  Any review or 
>distribution by others is strictly  prohibited.  If you are 
>not the intended recipient please contact the sender  and 
>delete all copies. 
>[email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>

---

From: Vijay Devarapallli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:57:49 -0800

> Is there any other reason to separate these two items?

its not like we are going to complete the MCoA spec first, then
start working on the flow/binding policies exchange spec.
based on what is actually required to setup the policies we can
change the base MCoA specification.

FWIW, I think there might be multiple specs (including those
not standardized in the IETF) on setting up flows or policies. the
MCoA spec should be flexible enough to support all these.

Vijay