Hi Lorenzo, OK, I can accept the text you proposed. I might add a disclaimer indicating that the exact interaction between the MN’s IP stack and the network is outside the scope of this draft in order to avoid a new discussion by people who might object the term ‘prefix’.
Regarding your question about the IPV6_REQUIRED_SRC_ON_NET flag, I will let Seil discuss with you. I would like to point out, however, that in the last DMM session, the WG voted to merge the draft that defined this flag with the OnDemand draft which had completed WGLC several week ago. This is the reason for the new version 08 of the OnDemand draft. I was not in the room during the discussion, but understood from the chair that there was a strong consensus for this merge. I will generate a version 09, which hopefully address you concerns. Regards, Danny From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 17:20 To: Moses, Danny <danny.mo...@intel.com> Cc: Peter McCann <peter.mcc...@huawei.com>; jouni.nospam <jouni.nos...@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobil...@ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08 Danny, I don't think assigning addresses vs. assigning prefixes is a question only of mechanism. For example, consider the IPV6_REQUIRE_SRC_ON_NET flag. If the network is following IP addressing best practices, I don't see a need for it. If a host already has an IPv6 address of the desired type, what's the point of sending a request to the network to obtain one? Is it so that the requesting app can obtain a new IP address with the desired properties, unique to that particular socket? But if so, the host should just create a new address for that socket, with the desired properties. The network should not be requiring that the host ask for individual IP addresses; it should be allowing the host to form more IP addresses without requesting them. In any case: since the socket options defined in this draft are IPv6-only, it only needs to concern itself with IPv6, and we're really only left with one case: a prefix. If so, how about the following? ==== When the IP stack is required to use a source IP address of a specific type, it can perform one of the following: it can use an existing address with the desired type (if it has one), or it can create a new one from an existing prefix of the desired type. If the host does not already have an IPv6 prefix of the specific type, it can request one from the network. Using an address from an existing prefix is faster but might yield a less optimal route (if a hand-off event occurred since its configuration), on the other hand, acquiring a new IP prefix from the network may take some time (due to signaling exchange with the network) and may fail due to network policies. ==== Cheers, Lorenzo On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Moses, Danny <danny.mo...@intel.com<mailto:danny.mo...@intel.com>> wrote: Firstly, I agree that the only two examples of ‘resource’ type that may result with a creation of a source IP address are (i) an IP address and (ii) an IP prefix. I cannot think of any other magic, but perhaps some else can… I am trying to avoid the term ‘prefix’ because it is not directly related to the Socket interface and I am trying to separate the definitions related to the Socket interface from the definitions related to the interaction between the MN and network. If I mention prefixes, I will have to explain that the network may allocate IP addresses or IP sockets and that in cellular networks the recommended mechanism is to allocate /64 prefixes… I do not want to get into these details because they are not helpful for Socket API users. However, I do intend to get into these details (and refer to the recommendation of RFC 7934) in the drafts that describe the extensions required to convey the IP service type between the IP stack in the MN and the network. From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com<mailto:lore...@google.com>] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 13:43 To: Moses, Danny <danny.mo...@intel.com<mailto:danny.mo...@intel.com>> Cc: Peter McCann <peter.mcc...@huawei.com<mailto:peter.mcc...@huawei.com>>; jouni.nospam <jouni.nos...@gmail.com<mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com>>; draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobil...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobil...@ietf.org>; dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08 On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Moses, Danny <danny.mo...@intel.com<mailto:danny.mo...@intel.com>> wrote: I think it is important to describe that application developer can influence the type of service the IP session is receiving, while being vague about the mechanism of address allocation. Since you are concern with the draft using the term ‘address’ and I am concern with using the term ‘prefix’, I tried using the term ‘network resources’. Yes, it is vague, but that is the intention. Ok, but what other type of resource can result in the MN being able to use an IP address? It seems to me that only an IP address or a prefix will qualify. And if allocating address on request is recommended, then that only leaves a prefix. If there are other types of resource that I'm missing, then "resource" might be OK, as long as it has appropriate examples. But if the only two options are "address" and "prefix" and "address" is not recommended, then saying "resource" is at best unhelpful and at worst misleading. Can you explain why you are concerned with using the term "prefix"? --------------------------------------------------------------------- A member of the Intel Corporation group of companies This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- A member of the Intel Corporation group of companies This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
