> > So even if we go with "one solution" it would have to > > incorporate several modes of operation (at least from the > > security perspective) to work for all the different protocols. > > > > Another question to ask here is what is the real benefit of > > having one solution? I'm not talking about saving documents, > > I mean a real benefit to an implementer. If the flow > > descriptors need to have the same format then that's easily > > done and reusable for implementers. But that doesn't require > > one transport protocol. > > What makes you think that it is only about the same format?
=> I look forward to more reasons. > If mobility > management protocols are able to stick to jobs that really belong to > mobility management protocols in contrast to extending them with the > management of filtering rules, I would say that it's more than just > about using the same format. If I, as an implementer of a mobility > protocol, don't have to consider the details of managing > filter rules, > it has a visible impact on the implementation. => First of all, what are those mobility management jobs and why is this aspect not relevant to those jobs? Second, you *do* need to worry about flow bindings regardless of the solution because even in the approach you advocate only the transport protocol for the filters is independent, no? The signalling for the flow binding is still included in the BU, at least in MIPv6, or are you suggesting that you don't carry anything related to flows in the BU, this includes mapping between flow id's and CoAs? If I, on the > other hand, > would need to integrate my mobility protocol implementation into a > system where another mobility protocol is also doing filter rule > management of its own, I would say that my job is to a greater extend > more demanding. Eventually the system will start to evolve > in such a way > that the filter rule management is pulled out to a common module in > which case I start thinking why would the mobility > management protocol => I don't know which system you refer to above, but I think it's well understood among people working in this area that there is a common module handling flow descriptions and the policies associated between a flow and an interface/CoA. This module can be indenpendent of the mobility protocol; what we're discussing here is how to send this information to some other node. Hesham _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
