Michael, > Note that the current draft already has text on mobility and NAT, unlike for > instance RFC 5986. I agree that in addition to NAT, proxies should be > mentioned. > And we should indeed highlight that > the IP address that is used for communication actually matters, in particular > also > in mobility scenarios. > > But beyond that, I really wonder how you want to specify in detail how to deal > with the wide variety of mobility and proxy solutions known in the IETF. This > could end up in an endless story.
OK. Then how about using your and Sebastian's suggested general statement about using the client's communication IP address, and highlight proxy based with one or two sentences? I'm not convinced that we should ignore the scenarios when the above sentences cannot work. Maybe we can give guidance in the document, that there could be exceptions and using the text about triangle routing from my original email as an example. Then we do not go to every exceptions in mobility. I'm not familiar with all the mobility technologies, but some will not impact ALTO discovery such as HIP which is a 3.5 layer technology. Does that make sense and look like a simple way to handle it in the draft? I can help to modify the draft if we can achieve a consensus here. BR, -Haibin > -----Original Message----- > From: Scharf, Michael (Michael) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 7:34 PM > To: Songhaibin; Sebastian Kiesel > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [alto] ALTO discovery in roaming scenario > > Haibin, > > > I would answer "yes" to the first two questions you raised. > > Well, I disagree with both, but I am willing to learn from real-world data. > > > It is easy to generalize the mobile and proxy based scenarios > > I raised, or even generalize the whole document into only one > > short paragraph such like "find the resource consumer's > > domain name, then use the U-NAPTR method with the new defined > > service tag...", if we do not go to the details. > > As I mentioned before, there is a quite a number of IETF protocols providing > mobility (in a somehow loose sense): > > - Proxy Mobile IP > - Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) > - Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) > - Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) > - NEMO > - SHIM6 > - HIP > - LISP (partly) > - ... > > Do you argue that we have to go into technical details for all of them? Do you > plan to write that text? > > Or do you argue that MIPv4 (which your suggested text apparently assumes) is > the only relevant protocol that ALTO discovery has to consider in details? > > Note that the current draft already has text on mobility and NAT, unlike for > instance RFC 5986. I agree that in addition to NAT, proxies should be > mentioned. > And we should indeed highlight that > the IP address that is used for communication actually matters, in particular > also > in mobility scenarios. > > But beyond that, I really wonder how you want to specify in detail how to deal > with the wide variety of mobility and proxy solutions known in the IETF. This > could end up in an endless story. > > Michael _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
