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

["Yuri Ismailov" <yuri.ismailov at ericsson.com>]

As I just wrote events may take place anywhere in the network and it may
be the case that HA knows about that but not MN. If HA has relevant
information about MN parameters it can act upon event arrival, otherwise
not.
These to things are complementary and I have the rough consesus with
myself that MN has a priority in decision, but not accepting hints is a
limitation. Moreover, hints may come from any other node in the network,
not necessarily from HA.

/Yuri


-----Original Message-----
From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:hesham at elevatemobile.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:33 AM
To: Yuri Ismailov; Julien Laganier
Cc: mext
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Important considerations for directionality of flow
bindings




>> 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