Hi Ted, Having a discussion in MIF WG sounds reasonable to me.
Regarding homenet relation, I'm not sure it belongs to that WG either. The focus of the homenet is on ingress networks and for realizing simplified configurations and that has no relation to access selection on egress paths. FWIW, this work is very much related to what the MIP working group have been doing for many years. Sure, the device in case of BBF is a fixed device, but the fundamental requirements are about access selection, flow mobility and policy exchange. The flow mobility / MCOA work in MIP working groups have done significant amount of work in this area and the expertise is in that group. If the reason for steering this work away from DMM is due the belief that we will apply only MIP-based solution, I'd say the group will certainly do that, but the WG may also agree to additional solution/protocol mechanisms. Also, IETF is in no position to pick one protocol/solution for this requirement. It is probably reasonable for IETF to identify a set of solutions and present analysis on each of the solutions and that can be the basis for the BBF to review and pick one or more solutions. But, either way I believe the expertise around this topic is in DMM WG and not in homenet or in MIF WG's. Regards Sri On 11/10/14 5:59 PM, "Ted Lemon" <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: >On Nov 10, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) ><sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: >> The BBF requirement as presented in the BBF documents and as >>interpreted in draft-seite and draft-lhwxz is about enabling a CPE >>device to attach to multiple access network and perform flow management. >>However, I look at it, I see this this is a mobility requirement and is >>really not in the scope of MIF WG. The BBF requirement in question is >>all about flow switching or flow splitting across access systems. I'm >>not sure why this work belongs MIF and not DMM which is chartered to >>handle all mobility use-cases. We have discussed this specific use-case >>of flow splitting during MIF formation and explicitly disallowed MIF WG >>from taking up such work. The following is the quote from the MIF >>chartered text. Also, the MIF WG was primarily looking at issues for a >>host attached to multiple access networks, but the hybrid access is >>about a CPE attached to multiple networks. I really think this work >>should be done in DMM and we did present the requirements in the last >>IETF meeting. > >It's not at all clear that the way the problem is currently framed is >even correct. I am skeptical that this is a flow splitting/flow >switching problem. I agree that if it is, it doesn't belong in MIF. >But I think it's worthwhile to discuss in MIF, and I think it's also >germane to what homenet is doing. If this does actually require flow >splitting and/or switching, that's going to have some pretty nasty >implications on the home network, so it would be nice to see if there's a >better way to approach the problem. > _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
