Dear all, I forgot to let you know that as a matter of summarizing this discussion and hopefully conclude it, we have schedule a slot in the Monami6 WG on Monday PM.
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/agenda/monami6.txt 8. Summary of Feb. discussion on INT-area ........................ 15 mins Chairs draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-03.txt draft-larsson-monami6-filter-rules draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow-distribution-policy-02.txt Topics: - mechanism to exchange preferences, not necessarily one needed for the determination of path - 1 sol fits all vs 1 tailored sol per protocol - MNN-MR Preference Settings . - NEMO RO and flow bindings for NEMO tightly related ? - having several exchange mechanisms, but a common format ? - host<->router and router<->router exchanges of filter rules, - distinction between filter rules and policies/preferences Regards, Thierry. On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:59:42 +0200 Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >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. >However, in order for a home agent to deal with return traffic >properly, the mobile node has to tell it what policy to >employ. > >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? > >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 > >Thoughts? > >Jari > -- Thierry ERNST, PhD INRIA Rocquencourt France Project-Team IMARA / JRU LARA http://www.lara.prd.fr +33 1 39 63 59 30 (office) _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
