[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jari,
At a high level, I think having a common mechanism & format for
this kind of functionality would be a really good thing. I think that
this is applicable for MIPv6, NEMO, SHIM6, HIP, MoBIKE, etc. and
defining point solutions for each protocol would be a wrong way
to go.
Just to add one more WG to the list, I believe pana had this discussion
in the past as well and settled upon draft-ietf-pana-snmp, but was
unwilling to commit to this being the *only* method.
- Mark
I think the exact transport of the mechanism and security the
mechanism may be a protocol specific issue, if they are defined
within the specific protocols - however, it might be interesting
to define a common protocol / solution, if it would meet the
requirements of Monami (for example). Has anyone done an
analysis if doing this in-band is prefered over out-of-band
(or visa-versa)?
A few comments below:
I would like to lift up one issue from the Monami6 WG to a
more general discussion. Monami6 is developing an extension to
Mobile IPv6 / Nemo so that a mobile node could register its
presence in multiple locations simultaneously.
One of things that they expect to be able to do is to control
what traffic goes to what care-of address; this flow to this
address, and the other flow to that other address. Mobile
nodes can obviously decide by themselves what outgoing
interface to use.
I agree, which I think leads us to the point that the policy would
usually be more of a hint than a mandate.
However, in order for a home agent to deal with return traffic
properly, the mobile node has to tell it what policy to employ.
Agreed
The working group has debated between a number of different
approaches for doing this. In one approach, draft-soliman-
monami6-flow-binding the mobile node adds a filter to a Mobile
IPv6 Binding Update to tell what traffic should use this binding.
Another approach, draft-larsson-monami6-filter-rules,
decouples the policy exchange from the mobility protocol. The
policies are exchanged at a different time (typically earlier)
and carried by a different protocol (in this case over UDP).
Yet another draft,
draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow-distribution-policy also separates
the mobility protocol and policy transfer, and carries the
policies in HTTP.
Monami6 should of course decide how they want to design this.
But this may be an interesting debate from a more generic
point of view. Do we have input for them? For instance, are
there needs in HIP/Shim6/Mobike space for similar
functionality? Should the designs be tailored for each of
these situations? Is there some advantage or disadvantage in
looking at a generic solution?
Would a generic solution be doable?
I tend to think that re-use is a good thing here, so if there
are no show-stoppers, I'd suggest a common solution would be
good.
Without going into too much detail about the specific
proposals it seems that there are actually a number of
different topics here:
- carrier protocol choice
- policy container format
- timing of the policy exchange
- securing the transfer
- etc
I think those are some of the issues that need to be seen. I'd
think that policy container format SHOULD be common across
protocols, and for the other bullets, based upon an analysis
of in-band vs. out-of-band signaling uses, the other bullets
can be sorted out. If out-of-band signaling seems like a good
way forward, then all of the bullets should be made so that they
are usable by other protocols. If we think that in-band signaling
is a requirement, then we could define the common container
format and then have protocol-specific solutions for the rest.
John
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
