Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] new draft

From: Jean-Michel COMBES <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:57:46 +0200

Hi,

Such a BU sub-options management needs some modifications (ie. adding new fields
: flow label, dest port, prot number, ...) in the Binding Cache List structure,
doesn't it ?
If so, I think it should be necessary to describe them in the draft.

Regards.
JMC.

"Hesham Soliman (ERA)" a écrit :

> Folks,
>
> Based on the comments on load balancing in
> HMIPv6 and the interest expressed by some,
> we've submitted a separate short draft on flow movement
> in MIPv6. The draft is generic and is not tied to HMIPv6
> only. The load balancing section will be taken out
> of HMIPv6 and a new revision will be submitted next week.
>
> Until the draft is announced you can find it in:
> http://standards.ericsson.net/Hesham/draft-soliman-mobileip-flow-move-00.txt
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Hesham

--

France Telecom R&D - DTL/SSR
Jean-Michel COMBES, Internet/Intranet Security
E-Mail : [email-masked]
Phone +33 (0)1 45 29 45 94, Fax +33 (0)1 45 29 65 19
PGP fingerprint : 07C6 37BF 4DE5 1CE1 EEB1 1F13 5D75 9E33 CFA7 0214

---

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:57:25 +0200

Folks, 

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Hesham

---

From: Wolfgang Hansmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:15:16 +0200

[draft-soliman-mobileip-flow-move-00.txt]

Browsing the draft over and over again an issue pops up I do not get 
behind. IMHO the protocol fields specified in the Flow movement 
suboption are not sufficient to describe flow redirection. 

- Suppose we have a flow sent by a CN and directed to a MN.

- Always keep in mind that a flow is uniquely described either by 

     (src_addr, src_port, dst_addr, dst_port, protocol) or by
     (src_addr, flowlabel), if flowlabel is nonzero.

According to the draft the suboption can sent either to a CN, a MAP
or a HA to redirect a flow to a particular CoA.

Case #1: BU with Flow movement suboption sent to a CN

In a PM Hesham told me the "Destination address" field contains the
MN's CoA. However, this information is already contained in either the
IP header source address fields or the alternate CoA option of the 
BU. So this field seems to be redundant in this case.

If the "P" flag is set, then we only have (dst_port, protocol, 
dst_addr, src_addr) to describe a flow. This is not enough to 
describe a flow sent as the src_port is missing.

(Suppose the MN offers a service on a dedicated TCP port x. Two
individual applications running on the CN establish a connection to 
the MN's TCP port x. In this case, the MN cannot redirect one of 
these flows to a different CoA)

Case #2: BU with Flow movement suboption sent to a MAP

If the "P" flag is set the MAP has no infortmation on
src_port and src_address of a flow. If the "F" flag is set, then
the MAP has no information on the src_addr of the flow.

(Suppose the MN offers again a service on a dedicated TCP port x. 
Two individual applications running on different CNs establish a 
connection to the MN's TCP port x. Yet again, the MN cannot redirect 
one of these flows to a different CoA)

Case #3: BU with Flow movement suboption sent to a HA

should be somewhat similar to case #2 (?)

Hope somebody could enlighten me,
Wolfgang