> > What makes you think that it is only about the same format? > > => I look forward to more reasons.
Me too. > > > 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? Filter rules need not to be mobility management dependent. > 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? Not to the same extend. 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? No, I'm not suggesting that. Naturally there needs be to some sort of a link, but I'm just questioning the approach that it should be both the mapping and the rule in which case changes to rules would always result in mobility management signaling. /Tero _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
