[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MEXT] [WGLC] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-03
Hesham,
Yes, what you're saying will do the job, not in all possible situations though (FID-PRI number less than existing one should be available)
In such case the proposal for the text, which I gave earlier would work as well, and I would recommend to include the example which we went through as well.
Regads
Yuri
-----Original Message-----
From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:hesham at elevatemobile.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 12:55 PM
To: Yuri Ismailov; George Tsirtsis
Cc: Laganier, Julien; mext at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] [WGLC] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-03
On 26/10/09 10:11 PM, "Yuri Ismailov" <yuri.ismailov at ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi Hesham,
>
> If, for example, there is a FID which covers range of port numbers and
> IP addresses. In such case flow bindings may look like as following
>
> FID-PRI FID Flow Description BIDs Action A/I
> ------- --- ---------------- ---- ------- ------
> 10 4 TCP dstPortMin=P1 1 Forward Active
> dstPortMax=PN
>
> If an MN whishes to discard some particular port number P1 < i < PN
> then the only possibility with the current FID table is to set The
> whole range to the state "Discard"
=> No, that's not a good way to go at all. If you want to do that the way to say discard port 100 where P1 < 100 < N then you send a new FID with Discard action, PRI set to say 9 (higher priority). You don't need to touch the existing one.
Hesham
>
> If other port numbers in the range should be still in Active state
> then the new FID definitions will be required and flow bindings will
> have to be transformed looking like the following, for example:
>
> FID-PRI FID Flow Description BIDs Action A/I
> ------- --- ---------------- ---- ------- ------
> 10 4 TCP dstPortMin=P1 1 Forward Active
> dstPortMax=P(i-1)
>
> 10 5 TCP dstPortMin=P(i+1) 1 Forward Active
> dstPortMax=PN
>
> 10 6 TCP dstPortMin=i 1 Discard Active
>
> Similar should be done if there are ranges of IP addresses and/or
> both IP addresses and port numbers covered by a single FID
>
> Does this clarify what I mean?
>
> Regards
> Yuri
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:hesham at elevatemobile.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:59 AM
> To: Yuri Ismailov; George Tsirtsis
> Cc: Laganier, Julien; mext at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] [WGLC] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-03
>
> Yuri,
>
>
>>
>> After the text:
>>
>> "1 Discard. This value indicates a request to discard all packets
>> in the flow described by the option. No BIDs are associated with
>> this Action."
>>
>> Add the following text:
>>
>> "In the case there is no correspondent FID to a particular flow or
>> range of flows, which should be discarded, a mobile node MUST install
>> a correspondent FID, otherwise error code 136 "FID not found" will be
>> returned by HA.
>
> => I don't understand what this means. Can you clarify?
>
>
> Care
>> should be taken when issuing request for discarding packets as this
>> will lead to disrupting applications communication after the "Discard"
>> action was applied to selected flows. Implementations may consider
>> notifying impacted applications in mobile nodes"
>
> => This part is clear to me.
>
> Hesham
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Yuri
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Tsirtsis [mailto:tsirtsis at googlemail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 5:54 PM
>> To: Yuri Ismailov
>> Cc: Laganier, Julien; mext at ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [MEXT] [WGLC] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-03
>>
>> Hi Yuri, comments inline.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Yuri Ismailov
>> <yuri.ismailov at ericsson.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Goerge,
>>> Thanks for the answers,
>>> What I did not understand if there will be some clarification text
>>> in the draft around "discard" action or all that is obvious and does
>>> not require any changes? My comment was that some additional text is needed.
>>>
>>
>> GT> I am not yet sure what non-trivial clarification we can provide.
>> IMO we do not need to provide any further clarifications on this subject.
>>
>>> I do not think your clarification about using FID-PRI is quite clear.
>>> The reason is that there is no FID for a particular flow within the
>>> range There is only a FID for the whole range of port numbers and/or
>>> IP addresses.
>>>
>>
>> GT> What prevents you from creating another FID that is specific for
>> GT> that
>> flow?
>>
>>> Surprized that disclaimer for n-cast about carefull use is in the
>>> text and about disclaimer for "discard" you just say "I do not think
>>> there is anything to say here." Still the question is will there be
>>> related text?
>>>
>>
>> GT> I think the implication of dropping packets is much clearer than
>> the implication of n-casting. Dropping packets means the application
>> to which the packet is sent will not receive the packet...do we
>> really need to say that? On the other hand, receiving N copies of the
>> same packet has some implications to TCP....this is also rather
>> obvious for people that know TCP...but maybe not everyone does.
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Yuri
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: George Tsirtsis [mailto:tsirtsis at googlemail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:08 AM
>>> To: Yuri Ismailov
>>> Cc: Laganier, Julien; mext at ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [MEXT] [WGLC] draft-ietf-mext-flow-binding-03
>>>
>>> Hi Yuri,
>>>
>>> Comments inline...
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Yuri Ismailov
>>> <yuri.ismailov at ericsson.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> after re-reading the draft come up with the comment on "Discard"
>>>> action in "Flow Identification Mobility Option"
>>>> I suggest either to extend the paragraph in the section 4.2 or add
>>>> a separate subsection clarifying behavior of MN and HA before and
>>>> after the "Discard" action was issued by MN.
>>>>
>>>> Below are the issues which are proposed to be addressed in the text.
>>>>
>>>> 1.The case when installed FID represent ranges of port numbers and
>>>> IP addresses. If MN decides to discard a particular flow within the
>>>> range then before that a correspondent FID should be installed in the HA.
>>>> Otherwise
>>>> "136 FID not found" will be returned from HA.
>>>>
>>>
>>> GT> If the MN wants to discard a particular flow within a range of
>>> previously registered flows, it needs to either split the range it
>>> two parts, or even better, use a higher FID-PRI for the discard
>>> flow so that packets get matched against it before they get matched
>>> against the range.
>>>
>>>> 2. Specify the time interval for how long time the "Discard" state
>>>> will be active in HA. This is necessary because there is no
>>>> "un-discard" message sent from MN.
>>>>
>>>
>>> GT> Flow bindings share the same lifetime with the BU. There is no
>>> flow binding-specific lifetime. If an MN wants to remove a flow
>>> binding it sends a BU which does not include the corresponding FID.
>>>
>>>> 3. Add a disclaimer that for some protocols, like TCP, "Discard"
>>>> action may lead to hanging up the connection at CN and should be
>>>> used responsibly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> GT> Discarding packets will drop connections....yes...I do not think
>>> there is anything to say here.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Yuri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MEXT mailing list
>>>> MEXT at ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> MEXT at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>
>