> -----Original Message----- > From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20. helmikuuta 2007 14:34 > To: Tero Kauppinen (JO/LMF); 'Jari Arkko'; 'Internet Area' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Int-area] Lifting up a filter discussion from Monami6 > > > > > The > > > signalling for the flow binding is still included in the > BU, > > at least in MIPv6, or are you suggesting that you > don't carry > > anything related to flows in the BU, this > includes mapping > > between flow id's and CoAs? > > > > No, I'm not suggesting that. Naturally there needs be to > > some sort of a > link, but I'm just questioning the > approach that it should > be both the > mapping and the > rule in which case changes to rules would > always result > > in mobility management signaling. > > => That's fine, so please question the approach. It's best to > have clear questions/doubts to progress the discussion. Or > feel free to respond to my earlier comments. But it's hard to > respond to statements like "A is better than B" without an > associated explanation.
I think that separating filter rules as much as possible from mobility management protocols (mmp) is good because: * integrating a new mmp to the framework is easier because the impact on the mmp is kept minimal * changes in filter rules do not always necessitate additional mmp signaling, signaling of course but not mmp signaling * filter rules can be distributed to nodes (or received from nodes) that would not normally receive mmp signals from the terminal (or would not send mmp signals to the terminal) I fully acknowledge that these present just my personal opinions because one of the tricky aspects in this whole vs. discussion is that I think it is possible get both approaches to work. /Tero _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
