Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flow bindings

[Hesham Soliman <hesham at elevatemobile.com>]

>> How do you make your HA know that the address XYZ your MN just SLAAC'd at the
>> starbucks downdown is assigned towards on a 54Mbs WiFi link?
>> Are you driving back to home to configure appropriately your HA while the MN
>> stays at starbucks?
> 
> The key is that one may use (I definetly would) applciation level to
> communicate any kind of parameters between HA and MN. I do not mean routing
> rules. Basically anything else. If one finds that the fact of MN being
> attached to 54Mbs WiFi link is useful information for HA, then there is
> nothing preventing to send this information to HA without involving MIP.

=> So, in this statement you make the following assumptions:
1. That the MN knows what is useful for the HA to know
2. That it's useful to send information to the HA so it can respond back to
the MN with the consequences of the information sent. In essence, the MN
knows what link it is connected to, yet it sends that information to the HA
so it can tell it what to do about it. Does that really make sense to you?
Why? We really need to see a substantial list of benefits here because
otherwise this is a complete waste of a RT between the MN and the HA. What
could the HA possibly tell the MN that it doesn't already know??


> Next important thing, in my view, is that the logic generating this or that
> set of routing rules whether implemented in MN or HA or both has nothing to do
> with MIP. This logic is about how to choose an interface for a particular flow
> and in theory may be delegated to a third party node (do not think this is a
> good idea though).

=> This is orthogonal to the discussion about the directionality of rule
transmission. Of course the logic is generated by upper layers but there is
no relationship between the layer generating the information and the
direction of information flow. The same layer exists at both ends.



Hesham