Alex, > In this sense, monami filters at MR are irrelevant to LFN. In which > case one can easily say that monami filters are only for MR. > Which is > easy to say that is relevant only for the MH part of that MR. > > My reasoning is. But let me turn it into a question: > > What's the effect of MR monami filters on the LFN application?
=> See below. > >> Just as an example. In NEMO the MNN might have a need to set the > >> preferred routes for it's traffic into the MR. For instance, think > >> of a case where the MNN is a laptop and the user uses a cellular > >> phone with multiple interfaces as a MR. In this scenario the user > >> most certainly would expect some control over the > application flows > >> from the laptop trough the phone. > > > > => Of course, so if it gets the prefixes from the MR and > associated > > properties with each one it can make that choice. I don't see the > > relationship between this issue and the current discussion on this > > thread. > > I agree with you with the first part. But I see a strong > relationship > of MR making monami decisions and its effects on LFN. If this > relationship is not defined then one simply can't say Monami is for > NEMO. End-to-end arguments can be made about this. => This is not different from a router in the fixed network that load-balances traffic without informing end hosts. This happens all the time today and no one is making e2e arguments about that. Routers are given the authority to route traffic in the most optimum manner, as they see it. Hesham _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
