Hi, Do we need to keep ccing int-area (at the same time of Monami6) ?
The term "Mobile Node" is missleading. What Benjamin is talking about is a Mobile Network Node (MNN). So, the issue raised by Benjamin is known for a long time, even before the set up of Monami6. The issue is discussed in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-07.txt section 4.10, and the conclusion (section 5 same draft) is that the issue is not specific to mobility at all (but is more important to be solved in mobility scenarios). This is why it is not brought up to the attention of the Monami6 working group. However, since it is more important to be solved for Monami6 use case, we could contemplate to solve it within Monami6, if interest arises. Of course, the solution should not be specific to mobility since the mobility protocol doesn't intervene between MR and MNN. This issue is also worked out by the automotive industry, within ISO TC204 WG16 (they have their own solution using SNMPv3). Thierry. On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:10:39 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi Benjamin, > >on 2007-02-16 04:05 Benjamin Lim said the following: >> Hi, >> >> Since Jari brought up this discussion, I would like to put forth an issue >> about interworking Monami6 with NEMO. In Monami6, a mobile node knows the >> traffic condition over its multiple links. Thus, the mobile node is able to >> inform its home agent how to route the flow to the mobile node (through the >> various filter rules setting methods proposed in the WG). >> >> The mobile node now associates with a mobile router with multiple egress >> paths (roaming into NEMO). However, the mobile node has no way of knowing >> the existence of multiple paths (and their network characteristics) to >> continue on with flow filtering. On the other hand, the mobile router cannot >> perform efficient flow filtering since the mobile router has no way to know >> the traffic requirements of the mobile node's flow. >> >> The fact is that the tunnel ends at the mobile router whereas the traffic >> ends at mobile node cause such a problem with flow filtering. >> >> Any thoughts on how such issue can be solved? > >While the proposals discussed in monami6 so far has been geared to transfer >of filter rules, this seems to call for transfer not of filter rules, but >of a subset of policy declarations (some sort of preferences for quality >and cost of service) between the Mobile Router and the Node attaching to the >Mobile Network (the MNN). > >I think that as a general problem, this may be less well understood, and >possibly more complex, than expressing filter rules. The filter rules I >see needed by for instance monami6 appear to be a subset of filter rules >that can be expressed for firewalls today, using well-defined languages; but >I'm not aware of mature languages for expressing cost/latency/bandwidth/ >/reliability/security/etc. preferences, and how to weigh them against each >other. > >I know that some work has been done in SHIM6 on expressing and communicating >policy, but don't know that work well enough to know whether it would be >applicable to this case. > > > Henrik > >_______________________________________________ >Monami6 mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6 > -- Thierry ERNST, PhD INRIA Rocquencourt France Project-Team IMARA / JRU LARA http://www.lara.prd.fr +33 1 39 63 59 30 (office) _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
