Hi Ole, By saying "multiple services" I mean the services (i.e. Basic internet, VoIP, VoD...) that can be generally provisioned independently from each other, not necessarily from a single provider.
Best wishes, Liang -----邮件原件----- 发件人: homenet [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Ole Troan 发送时间: 2015年3月3日 22:05 收件人: Liang Geng 抄送: [email protected]; Hui Deng 主题: Re: [homenet] MPVD requirments in homenet Liang, what do you mean by "multiple services"? if you mean walled garden, the homenet architecture only has the following to say: "It should be noted that some multihoming scenarios may see one upstream being a "walled garden" and thus only appropriate for connectivity to the services of that provider; an example may be a VPN service that only routes back to the enterprise business network of a user in the homenet. As per Section 4.2.1 of [RFC3002], we do not specifically target walled-garden multihoming as a goal of this document." cheers, Ole > On 03 Mar 2015, at 10:30 , Liang Geng <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm Liang from China Mobile, a recent follower of this community. > > Following a previous thread concerning the discussion of MPVD in > Homenet on 3rd Feb, I personally think that certain use cases are > quite well in line with the mif MPVD scenario. > > As homenet architecture provides autonomic network configuration in > future multi-service, multi-homed environment, I think it is also a > new challenge in terms of CPE management. My immature thought would be > that MPvD may provide a promising model. May I propose the following > problems for the list to see if it is worthy of some serious > investigation, on which hopefully would be something interesting I > could make a brief draft for further discussion (maybe in Dallas meeting)? > > Problems to be addressed > 1. Use case of MPVD in homenet > -Single ISP, multiple services (covers single/multiple CE router(s)) > -Multiple ISP, multiple services (covers single/multiple CE > router(s)) > 2. The association of PvD and network configuration in homenet > -Address configuration > -Naming and service discovery > For both, now thinking of a new PvD TLV which enables the association > of certain configuration and PvD. Initial thought would be that no > DHCP option extension is needed terms of HNCP based pvd coveying. Host > and non-HNCP routers may refer to mif work on how pvd information is > provided. > ...more to be discussed and added > > Any comments would be extremely welcome. > > Best wishes > Liang > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
