Thanks for the discussion. Inline please. On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:13, Tao Sun <hisun...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> **Cellular network >> >> 1. In cellular network, DHCPv6 is used for IPv6 parameter >> configuration and RA is used for SLAAC of handset. This is start from 3GPP >> release 8 (or earlier). >> >> 2. The network gateway in cellular network (e.g., GGSN) can >> naturally support DHCPv6 extension since the gateway acts as a DHCPv6 >> relay. However, it is very hard to update those gateways to use RA >> announcing the route information. >> >> 3. The handsets with MIF feature need to visit subscribed/operator >> provided service. Some traffic is routed to the operator’s network through >> 3G interface instead of to Internet through WiFi. DHCPv6 will be used >> to configure these specific routes. >> > > You can already do this today with RIOs, and I don't see why there need to > be two ways of doing the same thing. Adding a different method to configure > the same information is twice the code and more than twice the complexity, > since when you have two sources of information with different semantics you > need to figure out how to merge them, what happens if they disagree, what > to do if one is wrong, what to do if one expires, and so on. > We can not do this today. As 1 and 2 mentioned, both the deployed gateway and the 3GPP specification need to be updated to use RIO. I agree we need to consider the disagree/confliction among policies. That is caused by the multiple interface feature. If you use RA for all the interfaces, the rule received may still conflict. Addressing the confliction is exactly what MIF WG shall consider IMHO. > Also, in the mobile case I don't understand how you would use a > different gateway anyway. The mobile network is a point-to-point link, so > there's no way to distinguish multiple gateways. How would you use this? > > There are two types of scenarios. 1) A host is connected to the mobile network and WiFi at the same time, a typical scenario of MIF. 2) A mobile host connects to multiple APNs simultaneously, i.e., multiple PDN connection is established. The type 2) scenrio is also considered to be addressed in the OPIIS (Operator Policies for IP Interface Selection) work item in 3GPP. > ***Broadband network >> >> 1. WiFi network. Some WiFi hotspots provide local services. The >> route configuration on RG is needed to direct some traffic to local network >> while other traffic to the Internet. >> > > I don't understand why you need host changes to do this. Since the hotspot > router is a router, it can simply forward the packets the right way by > itself. > > You may refer to the Section of 3.4 of this draft or Section 5.2 of RFC 4191. > 2. VPN network. When a user connect to enterprise VPN network, >> the routing of VPN traffic need to be configured. Due to the large number >> of such VPN network, we cannot assume all the VPN network only use RA. >> DHCPv6 provides another choice which may be preferred by the VPN network. >> > > The rationale here seems to be that "if we create a new option, some > networks might use it". That's certainly true, but it doesn't provide a > compelling reason why we need the option in the first place. > To us, its a compelling reason due to the network managment/operation, per-subscriber service, foresee burden of modification to existing gateway and specifications. Best Regards, Tao
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
