Hi Chairs,
We want to elaborate the issue created in the tracker for clarity. What
Action should I take in “Modify Ticket”?
- leave as new
- resolve as …
- reassign to …
Regards,
Seil
*From:*Alper Yegin [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:34 AM
*To:* Seil Jeon
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [DMM] [dmm] #49 (ondemand-mobility): full on-demand
mobility support
OK, so now at least I fully understand what this is.
My recommendation is:
- Please refine the issue definition in the tracker, so that people can
understand this the same way,
- And then let's ask the WG members their opinion about the issue
(whether it's something worth tackling or not),
- And if they agree to the issue, then we move to the solution space
discussion.
Alper
On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Seil Jeon wrote:
- A Sustained IP address that just got allocated from the currently
serving network (hence the "mobility is not activated" until the MN
moves off link)?
Yes. Thanks for your elaboration.
Regards,
Seil
*From:*Alper Yegin [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 7:03 AM
*To:*Seil Jeon
*Cc:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:*Re: [DMM] [dmm] #49 (ondemand-mobility): full on-demand
mobility support
So, the idea is, when this flag is set along with a Sustained IP
address request from the app:
- if the host stack is already configured with a Sustained IP
address allocated from the serving network, then it gets selected
(irrespective of the presence or absence of any other Sustained IP
address).
>> No. I said "one that does not activate IP mobility" over the serving
network, among the existing ones in the IP stack, gets selected. If no one in the IP stack is
not matched, it will make an attempt to get a new sustained IP address from the serving network.
What exactly is "(an IP address) that does not activate IP mobility"?
Please elaborate.
Is it
- A nomadic IP address?
- A Sustained IP address that just got allocated from the currently
serving network (hence the "mobility is not activated" until the MN
moves off link)?
- something else?
Alper
On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:11 AM, Seil Jeon wrote:
Hi Alper,
Regards,
Seil
-----Original Message-----
From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 8:50 PM
To: Seil Jeon
Cc:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [DMM] [dmm] #49 (ondemand-mobility): full on-demand
mobility support
The point is that when the IP stack receives a flag with sustained IP
address flag, it will check it has a sustained IP address, and if it
has one or more, one that does not activate IP mobility will be
selected. If not, the MN will be triggered to get a new IP sustained
address not activing IP mobility.
So, the idea is, when this flag is set along with a Sustained IP address
request from the app:
- if the host stack is already configured with a Sustained IP address
allocated from the serving network, then it gets selected (irrespective
of the presence or absence of any other Sustained IP address).
No. I said "one that does not activate IP mobility" over the serving network,
among the existing ones in the IP stack, gets selected. If no one in the IP stack is not
matched, it will make an attempt to get a new sustained IP address from the serving
network.
- if the host stack is not already configured with a Sustained IP
address allocated from the serving network (irrespective of the presence
or absence of any Sustained IP address from any other network), then the
host makes an attempt to configure one with the serving network.
Yes.
-- if the configuration succeeds, then the newly configured IP address
is selected.
Yes.
-- if the configuration fails. then the call fails (?? or some other
behavior -- you can define here).
You mean the configuration fails when there is no sustained IP address, right?
In my opinion, this issue belongs to address configuration mechanism
based on definition of the three DMM APIs. Those jobs are/will be asked
on each configuration mechanism, according to discussion of the previous
teleconference in the WT you’re leading. At that time, if I see any
something related to our proposal, we will raise our voice.
Alper
#49: full on-demand mobility support
The three proposed flags express a "type" of source IP address an
application wants to get to the IP stack. Particularly, the sustained
IP address is proposed to provide on-demand IP session continuity,
which activates IP mobility once the terminal moves across other
access
network.
While the terminal stays at the same network where the session is
initiated, regular IP routing is applied.
The on-demand draft does not assure provide the full on-demand
mobility
for all scenarios by merely indicating the Socket API,
IPV6_REQ_SUSTAINED_IP. An example scenario raising the aforementioned
issue is as follows;
0. The MN is configured with one or more Nomadic IP addresses.
1. Once an app. requests "sustained IP address" to the IP stack, and
it
will obtain a sustained IP address through a protocol procedure
between the terminal and network.
2. Other app. initiated over the same access network will use the
same
sustained IP address while the terminal remains connected at the same
access network.
3. The terminal moves to another access network and a new app.
requests a
sustained IP address with the Socket API to the IP stack. Since a
sustained IP address is already available in the IP stack, the
sustained IP address is assigned to the new app.
Yes, that's what happens.
You are not pointing to an issue up until this point, right? Because,
you continuing your email with a "Besides" gives the impression that
you are pointing to an issue, but I don't see any issue captured in
the
above text.
There is an issue. Maybe, we need to be synchronized how have you
thought
and defined the meaning of "on-demand mobility". As far as I know,
there are two meanings; one is that by imposing capability among IP
address reachability and IP session continuity, needed for an
application, into a source IP address, on-demand mobility could be
achieved; as the other meaning, it can be rephrased and detailed with
dynamic mobility, which should be applied in the use of sustained IP
address. A new application needs to have non-anchored sustained IP
address. This is our consistent claim. Non-optimal routing issue has
been raised in DMM Requirement document in RFC 7333, which should be
critically considered in the solutions.
Sorry, I don't understand what you meant here.
You answer doesn't make us progress. Please specify where and what
you
have understood.
Besides, in case sustained IP address allocation is used default,
there
may be multiple sustained IP addresses including newly obtained
sustained IP address over the new access network in the IP stack.
However, when an app. is initiated, the IP stack may not select the
new one in the context of the default source IP address selection
mechanism [RFC6724][RFC5014].
OK, is the issue following: When there are multiple sustained IP
addresses, how does the IP stack pick one among them? (*)
As mentioned and specified in our draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source-00,
if there is no additional preference, we can leave selection to the
default source address selection mechanism. BUT if we have specific
preference among multiple sustained IP addresses and an initiated
application wants to have non-anchored sustained IP address over
currently attached access network, the proposed flag is essential.
I think you are meaning the same thing as I said above (*).
Do you agree?
Yes.
For providing the full on-demand mobility, a new flag is needed,
letting
the IP stack request a new sustained IP address or choose a sustained
IP address not requiring IP mobility anchoring when an application is
initiated, among the existing ones in the IP stack.
Your flag is not a solution to what I captured above. It does
something
else: Instruct the IP stack to go get a new sustained IP address
whether there is already one or more configured on the stack or not.
(**)
Answered in the above.
There's a discrepancy between (*) and your solution (**).
Are we talking about (*), (**), or something else?
There is no discrepancy between them. I said "a new flag", just an
additional flag not intending to get a new sustained IP address all
the time. And it should not request a new sustained IP address whether
there is already one or more configured on the stack or not. It is
given with the same expression in the ticket, though our draft is
saying the meaning of a new sustained IP address, which will be revised in next
update.
The point is that when the IP stack receives a flag with sustained IP
address flag, it will check it has a sustained IP address, and if it
has one or more, one that does not activate IP mobility will be
selected. If not, the MN will be triggered to get a new IP sustained
address not activing IP mobility.
Seil Jeon
Alper
--
-------------------------+------------------------------------------
-------------------------+-
-------------------------+---
-------------------------+---
Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> |
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: critical | Milestone:
Component: ondemand- | Version:
mobility | Keywords: on-demand mobility
Severity: Submitted |
WG Document |
-------------------------+------------------------------------------
-------------------------+-
-------------------------+---
-------------------------+---
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmm/trac/ticket/49>
dmm <http://tools.ietf.org/dmm/>
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
