John:

How would the AR know the cost of a prefix ? Assuming the AR is taking the role 
of a access gateway and the projected prefix is from a remote gateway, how 
would it put a cost ? Our earlier discussions, we always talked about 
presenting capabilities of a prefix and not some arbitrary cost metric; those 
capabilities in the form of attributes allow the MN to pick up a right prefix. 
So, I'm not sure how the AR computes this cost and how the end points make use 
of this value.


Sri




From: dmm <dmm-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of John 
Kaippallimalil 
<john.kaippallima...@huawei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@huawei.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:19 AM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for 
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt


Hi,

We have posted a new version of the Prefix Cost draft (please see submission 
below).



The comments addressed include that from the last meeting, as well as 
discussions on the reflector regarding how this cost can be provided to the 
host:

1. What is the motivation - what costs are being optimized
   [added entire chapter on Motivation]

2. Does this require additional signaling?
   [No additional signaling incurred in this mechanism - sub option of RA]

3. Does this impact L2 events?
   [Not responding to link layer /L2 events]

4. Is this addressing e2e aspects of flow, etc?
   [No e2e proposed; that is for MPTCP and others.]

5. What is host/application behavior when prefix cost changes?
   The updates provide some details on what can/should be done in the host. I 
think that detailed mechanisms should be

   addressed in a companion/other draft related to APIs, etc. But, it would be 
interesting to hear other views.



Would appreciate comments and suggestions.



John





-----Original Message-----
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org> 
[mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 2:37 PM
To: John Kaippallimalil; Peter McCann; Peter McCann
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt





A new version of I-D, draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt

has been successfully submitted by John Kaippallimalil and posted to the IETF 
repository.



Name:       draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost

Revision:   02

Title:            Communicating Prefix Cost to Mobile Nodes

Document date:    2015-10-13

Group:            Individual Submission

Pages:            9

URL:            
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt

Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost/

Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02

Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02



Abstract:

   In a network implementing Distributed Mobility Management, it has

   been agreed that Mobile Nodes (MNs) should exhibit agility in their

   use of IP addresses.  For example, an MN might use an old address for

   ongoing socket connections but use a new, locally assigned address

   for new socket connections.  Determining when to assign a new

   address, and when to release old addresses, is currently an open

   problem.  Making an optimal decision about address assignment and

   release must involve a tradeoff in the amount of signaling used to

   allocate the new addresses, the amount of utility that applications

   are deriving from the use of a previously assigned address, and the

   cost of maintaining an address that was assigned at a previous point

   of attachment.  As the MN moves farther and farther from the initial

   point where an address was assigned, more and more resources are used

   to redirect packets destined for that IP address to its current

   location.  The MN currently does not know the amount of resources

   used as this depends on mobility path and internal routing topology

   of the network(s) which are known only to the network operator.  This

   document provides a mechanism to communicate to the MN the cost of

   maintaining a given prefix at the MN's current point of attachment so

   that the MN can make better decisions about when to release old

   addresses and assign new ones.









Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.



The IETF Secretariat


_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Reply via email to