Subject: [netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-03

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:12:39 -0500

Hi Carlos,

Can you please take a look at
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-02.txt?

I am hearing the some implementers that they first implement the
extensions we defined in this draft before implementing flow mobility
protocol for PMIPv6.

To me it makes sense given the fact that with the current model in RFC
5213, it is impossible to do any flow mobility.

What do you think?

Regards.

Behcet

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:32:21 +0200

Hi Behcet,

> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions-02.txt?

Yes, I knew and read your draft.

> extensions we defined in this draft before implementing flow mobility

There are also some implementers interested in implementing
draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob (or already doing it). Just take a look
at the list of authors and the companies they work for.

> 5213, it is impossible to do any flow mobility.

The WG is chartered to work on the required extensions to do flow
mobility in draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob. If you have
comments/suggestions on what is missing or wrong, please bring them to
the list for the WG to discuss.

Thanks!

Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
   GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                IEEE Network Special Issue on
                  Video over Mobile Networks
 http://dl.comsoc.org/livepubs/ni/info/cfp/cfpnetwork0313.htm 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:01:06 -0500

> Yes, I knew and read your draft.

Good.

> at the list of authors and the companies they work for.

Don't get what you mean? Author=implementer?
I can see only one author, yourself, so you are also implementer?

> the list for the WG to discuss.

As we explain it in draft-sarikaya-netext-fb-support-extensions,
PMIPv6 multihoming model in RFC 5213 treats each interface
independently of the others. It is not possible to move flows between
interfaces without changing this model. An integrated treatment of the
bindings is needed.
We come up with a solution which is quite simple.

I suggest that you add a normative reference to this draft.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:55:44 +0200

Hi Behcet,

> Don't get what you mean? Author=implementer?

I guess we can safely assume that an author is a person interested in
the topic. If the author works for a company, I guess this is because
the company supports it.

> I can see only one author, yourself, so you are also implementer?

I'm the editor, not the author. Originally, there were many authors (see
Section 9), and now it is a WG document, so all the WG is responsible of
the document itself.

And yes, I'm also an implementer, aren't you? I think it is quite useful
to have real implementation experience when working on protocol
standardization.

> We come up with a solution which is quite simple.

draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob also deals with that, but in a
different way. We can discuss in the WG which is the best approach to
use and document that in the draft.

Thanks,

Carlos

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:10:17 -0500

Hi Carlos,

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos
> use and document that in the draft.

I don't understand what you mean here. One observation I have
regarding draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob is that PMIPv6 design
philosophy of keeping LMA behaviour close to HA behaviour is simply
not followed.

I don't think we can go far by not doing it.

Regards,

Behcet