++ mailing list I agree with you Marco.
Keeping the parent/child relation is crucial. Although we often cite dedicated vs. default bearers (LTE) we need to also ack that we use hierarchical concepts throughout mobility and forwarding management protocols, e.g. meters, session and sub-session (includes accounting), etc. Lifecycle association here (fate sharing of the children with the parent) is an important concept. Many of the mobility systems assume gateways (LMAs and MAGs) have knowledge of the relationships between sessions and sub-session and will often kill the session in order to reduce signaling overhead. They also assume when installing a session / sub-session that any violation of hierarchy rules, e.g. setting a child's max bit rate above a parent's, would be properly enforced, i.e. it is an error or the child's value is ignored. For FPC we also use it to avoid sending redundant data (does one need to send the mobile's IP address for any sort of sub-session work if it is tied to a parent that already has it?) -----Original Message----- From: Marco Liebsch [mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 5:49 AM To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perk...@earthlink.net>; Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] <lyle.t.be...@sprint.com> Cc: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com>; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; Moses, Danny <danny.mo...@intel.com>; Weaver, Farni [CTO] <farni.wea...@sprint.com>; Matsushima Satoru <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp> Subject: RE: Parent versus child mobility context That has been introduced to reflect e.g. dedicated bearers which come on top of default bearers hence have some level of dependency. If context associated with a default bearer gets closed, dependent context will follow. To me it makes sense. Others? marco -----Original Message----- From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net] Sent: Montag, 22. Januar 2018 06:29 To: Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] Cc: Marco Liebsch; Satoru Matsushima; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Moses, Danny; Weaver, Farni [CTO]; Matsushima Satoru Subject: Parent versus child mobility context Hello folks, I have looked at this several times, and I would like to propose simplifying it to simply be a mobility context. I don't see that the extra complication is worth it, especially right now. If, in the future, we need it for something, we could put it back in. Thanks for your consideration of this request. Regards, Charlie P. ________________________________ This e-mail may contain Sprint proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
