Hi Li, > The CPE is fixed device, we don't consider CPE mobility scenario.
It does not matter if the device is a fixed device or a mobile device. There is a general misconception that Mobile IP/PMIP technology is exclusively for a device roaming in the network. We have many large scale deployments of the technology where the devices are fixed in a given location (devices are bolted), but the key properties of the technology, such as overlay tunnel access, multi-path support, traffic aggregation, multi-tenancy, signaling capability for service property negotiation etc are used. In this case a Residential gateway with LTE and Wi-Fi interface, or a Mobile Router in rail with Satellite and Cellular access interfaces are used for supporting the exact same requirement. The ability to request a set of network prefixes for the ingress network from a central anchor, the ability to define access path selection on application basis, or supporting some QoS capabilities are exact the same. > “negotiate Application-to-Access routing policy is present in those > technologies. “ Is it the new item just started? Its already supported in NEMO/DSMIPv6. Some missing gaps in other other protocol variants can be fixed with some trivial changes. > My question is why we don’t extend L2TP control plane or GRE control plane, > as extend MIP control plane, for distribution control way. So the main issue is to investigate which control plane we add to the tunnel’s data plane, all can be fixed (L2TP, GRE, IPInIP,MIP). Sure. We can extend any protocol. But, we have to invest in technologies designed for supporting such use-cases and in technologies which are already supporting such deployments. If MIP WG's have spent years in designing IP Flow Mobility solutions, it may not sound logical for Homnet or some other WG to re-publishes the same work with a different title. I'm absolutely not in favor of defining a new GRE Control Protocol either. We will end up defining a new signaling protocol with all semantics borrowed from MIP protocol. > On the other side, what we need may an overlay tunnel technologies on the > data plane. Ack. MIP gives you just that. Regards Sri From: Xueli <xu...@huawei.com<mailto:xu...@huawei.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 3:02 AM To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com<mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, "pierrick.se...@orange.com<mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com>" <pierrick.se...@orange.com<mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com>>, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com<mailto:ted.le...@nominum.com>>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7...@att.com<mailto:bs7...@att.com>> Cc: "mif@ietf.org<mailto:mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org<mailto:mif@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband For um Work on ³Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks² (WT-348)" Hello Sri Thanks for your information. Please see my reply in line. Best Regards Li From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:41 PM To: Xueli; pierrick.se...@orange.com<mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com>; Ted Lemon; STARK, BARBARA H Cc: mif@ietf.org<mailto:mif@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband For um Work on ³Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks² (WT-348)" *** Trimming the CC list to include only the MIF WG; Removed DMM and homenet lists. HI Li, To you question on the Problem Statement that the MIP technologies have addressed, I'd say its the following. [xueli] I assume that you agree with the hybrid architecture and requirements, right? If yes, then let’s discuss the potential solutions. There are still some gaps in MIP. Please see my next response. In general, all the Mobile IP class of protocols have support for access-link bonding. The ability for the anchor and the access gateway (or the anchor and the mobile node) to establish multiple overlay tunnels paths over different access networks, and to negotiate Application-to-Access routing policy is present in those technologies. [xueli] First of all, right now, hybrid access scenario is for CPE multihoming or multiple heterogeneous access networks rather than the Mobile node. The CPE is fixed device, we don't consider CPE mobility scenario. On the other side, what we need may an overlay tunnel technologies on the data plane. From the data plane point of view, there are many potential solutions, such as L2TP, GRE, IPinIP (MIP) The hybrid access gaps are the control plane for traffic management (*This is already mentioned in another discussion email ). The control issue is the main gap in Hybrid access. For example, negotiation about the traffic distributions, different access network switch, etc… (mentioned in the architecture draft) The control plane is missing, also in MIP. “negotiate Application-to-Access routing policy is present in those technologies. “ Is it the new item just started? From this point of view, each tunnels (L2TP, GRE, IPinIP (MIP) ). with a extended flexible control plane can apply for hybrid access. If we consider this like a distribution way based on the control plane between the CPE and HA( as shown in your figure.) We also can consider some centralized control function/entity, which can distribute the signal to CPE and HA so as to resolve the control plane requirement of hybrid access. My question is why we don’t extend L2TP control plane or GRE control plane, as extend MIP control plane, for distribution control way. So the main issue is to investigate which control plane we add to the tunnel’s data plane, all can be fixed (L2TP, GRE, IPInIP,MIP). Without distribute control plane, centralized control function can resolve the issue as well. What do you think? Let me know if you believe this does not meet the requirement. Flow-1 | |Flow-2 | | | |Flow-3 _----_ | | | CoA-1 _( )_ Tunnel-1 | | | .---=======( Wi-Fi )========\ Flow-1 | | | | (_ _) \ | | | | '----' \ | | | +=====+ _----_ \ +=====+ _----_ | | '-| | CoA-2 _( )_ Tunnel-2 \ | | _( )_ -- | '---| MN |---====( LTE )=========-----| HA |-( Internet )-- '-----| | (_ _) Flow-3 / | | (_ _) -- +=====+ '----' / +=====+ '----' | | _----_ / HoA-1--' | CoA-3 _( )_ Tunnel-3 / .------====( CDMA )========/ Flow-2 (_ _) '----' Regards Sri From: Xueli <xu...@huawei.com<mailto:xu...@huawei.com>> Date: Monday, October 27, 2014 9:04 PM To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com<mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, "pierrick.se...@orange.com<mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com>" <pierrick.se...@orange.com<mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com>>, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com<mailto:ted.le...@nominum.com>>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7...@att.com<mailto:bs7...@att.com>> Cc: HOMENET Working Group <home...@ietf.org<mailto:home...@ietf.org>>, "mif@ietf.org<mailto:mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org<mailto:mif@ietf.org>>, "d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org>" <d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband For um Work on ³Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks² (WT-348)" Hello Sri Thanks for the comments. Just some clarification for the cross email. A new version about the architecture is uploaded.. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lhwxz-hybrid-access-network-architecture-01.txt There are some new requirements about the hybrid access topic, such as bonding, traffic policy distribution etc. Do you mind to share more additional technologies about the existing protocols solution for hybrid access. Which exact issues it is really solving, in order to evaluate if the existing solutions properly solve this use case? Best Regards Li From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 6:56 PM To: pierrick.se...@orange.com<mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com>; Xueli; Ted Lemon; STARK, BARBARA H Cc: HOMENET Working Group; mif@ietf.org<mailto:mif@ietf.org>; d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [DMM] RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband For um Work on ³Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks² (WT-348)" <We probably should not be cross posting the mail to three WG mailers, but I will respond to this one last email> Hi Li, While the term "hybrid-access" sounds fresh and new, but its important to understand that this is largely a use-case around mobile networks. Per my comments in the last HOMENET meeting, mobility working groups have defined solutions for this multi-access use-case. There are clearly mechanisms that allow network entities to negotiate flow policies and switch traffic on application basis. The access can be LTE, WLAN, SatRAN, Fixed line ..etc, but the negotiated policies allow the peers to agree on binding a flow to a given access. Wearing cisco vendor hat, we have deployed solutions for this use-case for the last decade. So, I agree with the BBF use-case and I think we should probably draft a BCP-type solution document, explaining BBF on the tools that are available for addressing this issue. If there are minor gaps, we should certainly propose extensions to the protocols. As pierrick, I'm also not in favor of defining a control protocol for GRE as its not needed. GRE is a use-plane protocol and the semantics that are present in the header are only designed to be used for adding meta-data related to the IP flows in that tunnel header. There are no semantics for defining a new signaling layer in a user-plane protocol. GRE was always used in conjunction with a signaling protocol and that signaling protocol is IPsec, MIP, PMIP ..and so on. However, you design that control protocol, it will exactly smell and feel like existing protocols. The aspect around subscriber identity, authorization, access policy, Traffic flow template definition …all of this has to be modeled and in the process we will end up reinventing every thing that we defined over the last many years, but it will have a new title, "GRE-CP". Regards Sri From: "pierrick.se...@orange.com<mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com>" <pierrick.se...@orange.com<mailto:pierrick.se...@orange.com>> Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:05 AM To: Xueli <xu...@huawei.com<mailto:xu...@huawei.com>>, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com<mailto:ted.le...@nominum.com>>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7...@att.com<mailto:bs7...@att.com>> Cc: HOMENET Working Group <home...@ietf.org<mailto:home...@ietf.org>>, "mif@ietf.org<mailto:mif@ietf.org>" <mif@ietf.org<mailto:mif@ietf.org>>, "d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org>" <d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org>> Subject: [DMM] =?Windows-1252?Q?RE:_[homenet]_Fwd:_New_Liaison_Statement, _"Broadband_For?= um Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)" Hi Li, Architecture considerations and solution design are two different things, which should not be addressed in the same I-D. People may agree with the big picture depicture and architecture but not agree with going on extensions to the GRE protocol to address the issue. BTW, I think that going for extensions to GRE header to address the hybrid access use-case is not the right way. Actually, IETF solutions already exist (RFC 4908 ) and, moreover, there is ongoing effort in DMM to update RFC 4908 to meet hybrid access requirements. BR, Pierrick De : Xueli [mailto:xu...@huawei.com] Envoyé : mercredi 22 octobre 2014 11:48 À : Ted Lemon; STARK, BARBARA H Cc : HOMENET Working Group; mif@ietf.org<mailto:mif@ietf.org> Objet : RE: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband Forum Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)" Hello Thanks Barbara to send this liaison out. Hybrid Access network is that Residential gateway (RG, or CPE) is extended with more than two access lines (e.g. DSL + LTE) in order to provide higher bandwidth for the customers. The scenario and architecture are shown as follows [cid:image002.jpg@01CF9A07.BF8CD480] Right now, we have two individual drafts, one for architecture and requirements, and the other one is for an optional solution. The draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lhwxz-hybrid-access-network-architecture-00 ; ) proposes the architecture and gap analysis. The solution draft proposes one option for the solutions, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-heileyli-gre-notifications-00 We did not combine them as one draft, because we believe there may be other candidates, and we would like to have further discussions in the related groups and IETF. We used to present it in Homenet in Toronto. Now the authors have invited Orange to join this architecture work. We will send out the new version of these drafts soon. We are glad to invite the experts for comments. Best Regards Li Xue on the co-authors behalf -----Original Message----- From: homenet [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:05 AM To: STARK, BARBARA H Cc: HOMENET Working Group Subject: Re: [homenet] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband Forum Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)" On Oct 21, 2014, at 2:55 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7...@att.com<mailto:bs7...@att.com>> wrote: > FYI. I made sure they were aware of IETF mif and homenet activities in this > area. I intend to try to prevent having to track efforts that try to do the > same thing in two different ways. But some of the BBF effort may be focused > on what can be done around "bonding" of multiple interfaces that are under > the control of a single service provider. I don't see this in mif or homenet. Thanks. I couldn't really tell what was being proposed from the Liaison statement, so this information is helpful. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list home...@ietf.org<mailto:home...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
