Re: [MEXT] weird idea about flow bindings

To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>

Subject: Re: [MEXT] weird idea about flow bindings

From: George Tsirtsis <tsirtsis at googlemail.com>

Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 21:20:39 -0400

Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=h2ZuvvlhIbc3L6JGQLaVGEqPVzGn+GCn+SV7IvJXLRg=; b=mpJ5s8nJUN9yRMCW10dvhAPP/UkrS+YmoRwhoSWxetaVmIbs9JQRxafAWR7fxpVi0Q vSC0/MpO/Df59lct88Hs1Vys6anf6crm+fpnBCm5LlUqAWU7m34cD0ZFqeWpMKEjJJ2y tVfeIMdX9K255P7b/O9K08caTIxOQcY7TQZBA=

Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=e6ZivliTK7GgQhqBW1Wr8EomDNjP9VdHeJXdzbpD4KWzRI3RSS+zl/B5HvdMjv0ajY E1eOvKmpkb7X+E/nd0MDsNqhBuvAy0CnF1/73kad5I0Ecuh64vIt7wTPsdArz7KU02iS eHs8/vkRDYsMmEQ41dILgZH2sn4oQf6N4gij8=

In-reply-to: <4A0F507E.5070204 at it.uc3m.es>

List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>

List-help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>

List-id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>

List-post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>

List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>

References: <4A0F507E.5070204 at it.uc3m.es>

If I understand correctly your scheme seems to assume the following:

1) what constitutes a "flow" is something fixed and is understood by both the MN and the HA.

2) "flows" start one at a time giving enough time to the MN, to send a BU to the HA to label (and optionally redirect) each one, before the next starts.

These are far from safe assumptions, but maybe I did not understand your proposal in the first place.

George

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:47 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es> wrote:

Hi,

Here goes a weird idea about how to do the flow bindings.
What about if we only identify flows using the flow label?
I mean, that instead of having to define a format to describe the flows, we simply include the flow label value of the specific flow in the flow bindings rules.

This would imply basically that the MN host has the policy configured about which flow will flow through each CoA.
the first packet of each flow will be received through the primary CoA (the one with highest priority).

Upon the reception of the flow, if the MN wants to divert the flow through an alternative CoA, it sends a BU with the Flow binding option, including the Flow label value of the flow and the BID associated to the CoA it wants to use for this flow.

The main drawbacks of this approach afaict is that the first packets will flow through the primary CoA, but i guess these should not be too many packets and that there is a need to send a BU per each flow that will be sent through a CoA other than the primary one. Maybe these are not too many, don't know.

The nice thing is that this is fully extensible since we never have to encode bits refering to the upper layer headers in the BU.

Anyway, i thought it may be good to bring this up for discussion.

Regards, marcelo

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext