Hi Hui, Thanks for your reply, and please see below for follow-up:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hui Deng [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 6:59 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: New draft: IRON Applicability for Multiple > Interface Nodes > > Hello Fred, > > Thanks for writing MIF iron document, > Comments from MIF: > 1) MIF is not targeting a new internetworking and routing > architecture, MIF > is proposed to solve today existing industry's architecture > such as 3GPP, > BBF, WIFI deployment or Ethernet/PON office network. IRON is concerned with solving problems for the existing industry's architecture. It does not replace any of the existing architecture, but rather augments the existing architecture. > For new architecture > proposal, it would better to be discussed in IRTF. IRON is not a new architecture, but rather a ready-for- deployment second edition of an architecture already published through the IRTF RRG (see RFC6179). Hence, IRON is now proposed as an IETF working document. > 2) MIF is not going to solve one OS handling two interfaces > with the same > conflict IP address and prefix. At this moment, it is talking > about how to > select happy eyeball path with multiple interfaces. The IRON soultion to happy eyeballs is to expose only a single, stable IRON virtual interface to the application and to dynamically ensure that the IRON interface remains mapped to the best underlying ISP interface(s) based on current ISP connectivity. > Comments from research direction: > 1) Thinking about the possibility how to deploy VSP > integrated with the > existing architecture like 3GPP, BBF, WIFI. It will take a > revolutionary way > other than incremental deployment since it will change both host and > network, No; no changes to the current network deployment. IRON only requires a few new routers be deployed in the network in incremental fashion. (Modification of existing routers is also possible.) > host is especially harder in today's mobile industry > by supporting IRON interface. The MIF node would require a new IRON virtual interface, yes. The IRON interface is really the same as for GRE, but also asks for dynamic mapping of the IRON interface to ISP interface(s) so that applications see a constant and stable interface with constant and stable IP config. > 2) As far as I learned, IETF is more focusing on the problem with the > limited scope other than a general solution which can solve > everything like > 1st paragraph of in section of Introduction. OK, but if the limited scope solution also happens to generalize, then so much the better - right? > Excuse me for not reading in detail about your 4 drafts. The progression in understanding should be to first become familiar with the IRON virtual interface in the current MIF draft. Then, read IRON followed by SEAL followed by VET followed by AERO - while taking a break between documents as necessary without risk of losing context. So, the documents are inter- dependent in a seperable and healthy way without being co-dependent in a pathological way. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Thanks again > > -Hui > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:07 AM > > To: Hui Deng > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: FW: New draft: IRON Applicability for Multiple > Interface Nodes > > > > Hello Hui, > > > > The draft I announced on Jan 4th (below) was motivated > > by our discussions back in December: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg01597.html > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/current/msg01599.html > > > > I would appreciate it if you could take the time to > > review the draft and post comments. > > > > Thanks - Fred > > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of > > Templin, Fred L > > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 11:52 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [mif] New draft: IRON Applicability for Multiple > Interface Nodes > > > > Hello, > > > > I have submitted a new draft on "IRON Applicability for > > Multiple Interface Nodes" (see below). Please review and > > send comments. > > > > Fred > > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] > > On Behalf Of [email protected] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:18 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: I-D Action: draft-templin-mif-ironapp-00.txt > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > > Title : IRON Applicability for Multiple > Interface Nodes > > Author(s) : Fred L. Templin > > Filename : draft-templin-mif-ironapp-00.txt > > Pages : 7 > > Date : 2012-01-04 > > > > The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) is a new > internetworking > > and routing architecture that addresses important issues > including > > routing scaling, network renumbering, mobility management, mobile > > networks, multihoming, traffic engineering, NAT traversal and > > security. In this document, we focus on IRON's applicability for > > multiple interface (mif) nodes. > > > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-mif-ironapp-00.txt > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-mif-ironapp-00.txt > > _______________________________________________ > > mif mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > > > _______________________________________________ mif mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
