Subject: [netlmm]review of draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6 about Multihoming support

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:31:05 +0800

Hi folks

         My two cents.

         I'm sure what means the 'must' in section 5.4 that is multihoming
support. Is it mandatory for implementation or deployment ? I guess it
should be for implementation. So if does the 'must' used at here is exactly?
If some netlmm enabled networks didn't want to support this feature , what
can they do or we didn't approve any network didn't support it?

         Best Rgds,

Thanks,

John.zhao

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

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:04:46 -0800 (PST)

Hi John,

> can they do or we didn't approve any network didn't support it?

Multi-homing is mandatory assumption in the base spec. Its not an option 
where the multi-homing specific rules can be ignored. Typically, its not
common to claim compliance to an IETF document, while ignoring specific
sections. May be True with SNMP MIBS, but not with RFC's, AFAIK. W.r.t how
the processing rules are specified, the rules are chained and its 
mandatory for the LMA/MAG to apply those considerations.

Sri

---

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:38:26 +0800

Hi Sri,
	Thanks . To confirm if I have understand eventually ,I want to make
sure that you means if we want to reference this document in some SDOs we
can choose whether or not to support the Multi-homing section,right? And
when will the LMA/MAG should support this feature is not belong to the scope
of this document,right?
	Best	 Rgds,
Thanks,
John.zhao  

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Sri Gundavelli [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 主题: Re: [netlmm]review of draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6 about Multihoming
> support
> Hi John,

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:01:20 -0800 (PST)

> when will the LMA/MAG should support this feature is not belong to the scope

No .. no ... I meant its mandatory just as specified in this document. 
When LMA receives a PBU, it must apply all the specified considerations
and including those that are specific to Binding Cache entry existence
test/Multi-homing.

Sri

---

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:15:25 +0800

Hi,Sri
> and including those that are specific to Binding Cache entry existence
[John.zhao] I see. Thanks. I concern how to control if we should let the LMA
to support this request. From network control perspective, I think the
policy center can have the information about if the subscriber should be
support for multi-homing and inform either LMA/MAG or both to do the
authorization. How do you think it?
	Best Rgds,
John.zhao

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 22:28:17 -0800 (PST)

> authorization. How do you think it?

Well ... multi-homing is not an option, or atleast that argument got the
attention. Sure, the network can know about the terminal capabilities and
can do it differently, or the terminal with connection manager can do
million other things. But, now we fully support a multihomed terminal and
so no issue. Dont remind me about multihoming, it hurts, when I look at
the time :)

Any case, currently we do ensure a multi-homing terminal can connect to
the PMIP domain. So, what is the impact of these processing rules for a
single interface terminal ? Nothing significant. The IID and the Handover
hint allow the LMA to identify the mobility session. The logic is same for
both. So, there is no room for any optimizations here.

Sri

---

From: "John.zhao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:21:34 +0800

Hi,Sri
> so no issue. Dont remind me about multihoming, it hurts, when I look at
[John.zhao] Have we defined the exactly means of IID,such as MAC
address,virtual identifier, or maybe it is open for implementation? 
> both. So, there is no room for any optimizations here.
[John.zhao] I'm not worry about terminal. The multi-homing is a feature. Can
you confirm if all network operators also like to support the session
continue between MN's multiple interfaces in any cases? To network, it have
the right to decide if and when to support this. So I believe this document
can provide the fully multi-homing support to terminal. But I think it can't
decide a request ask for this support.This is important too.