Subject: RE: [Monami6] Do we need to update the Monami6 charter ?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:51:32 +0300

Thierry,

> > > I'm not sure I get you here: our purpose is to address the 
> > > case where we have a MN/MR has multiple interfaces and wants 
> > > to use them simultaneously.
> > 
> > Clarification question:  what do you mean by simultaneously - 
> > something like bi-casting or loadsharing across multiple interfaces
> > or do you mean just having both interfaces active at the same
> > time, but not necessarily have packets flowing on them.
> 
> I give you a concrete example: one interface would be used to send VoIP
> while another, at the same time, would be used to send your GPS
> positions.

That would be fine, but what I was more asking is, can we support a mode
of operation where we have your above scenario, but also support this
kind of scenario:

 I have two interfaces active, but I only want packet flow on one at a time.
 Having two transmitting interfaces will drain batteries greatly, so I'd
 prefer only using one as a sort of backup.  

This is overlapping greatly with multihoming work elsewhere, so I just wanted
to check if people are also thinking of this type of work here.

John

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:07:40 +0900

Hello,

>  prefer only using one as a sort of backup.  

At the moment you can already have those features in some implementations:
- either you use one interface at a time, and if another better one is 
available, then it switches to this one (kind of interface preference 
mechanism, where you put a priority on each interface). In that case the 
MN-HA tunnel is moved from one interface to amother.
- or you can use several interfaces at the same time, ie have several 
MN-HA tunnels (for example thanks to multiple CoA registrations). In 
that case you can either separate the flows to several interfaces with 
some policies, or send all your traffic to one interface, it's up to the 
user's policies.

-- 
Romain KUNTZ
[email-masked]

---

From: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:57:44 +0200

Hi John

>> I give you a concrete example: one interface would be used to send 
>> VoIP while another, at the same time, would be used to send your GPS 
>> positions.
>
>That would be fine, but what I was more asking is, can we 
>support a mode of operation where we have your above scenario, 
>but also support this kind of scenario:
>
> I have two interfaces active, but I only want packet flow on 
>one at a time.  Having two transmitting interfaces will drain 
>batteries greatly, so I'd  prefer only using one as a sort of backup.  
>
>This is overlapping greatly with multihoming work elsewhere, 
>so I just wanted to check if people are also thinking of this 
>type of work here.

I do not aggree here with you. If you think abt current/ future trend of
mobile devices, you can't argue like this. We are used to have devices
which could support energy efficient access technologies as well as more
alternatives to extend the lifetme of batteries in a small devices.

One e.g., we are working for EU project that deals with waerable
devices, --> i.e. a computer in a buckle of the belt, you can use
Bluettoth, WLAN together and battery lifetime of 3-4 hrs. 

You would see the importance of the use of multiple technologies
simulataneously, considerig the scenarios that are highlighted in
generic-PB drafts. On the other hand, you will not use them
simulataneouly all the time. That's why we need some policy exchange to
utilise them in a proper way. As you said, for some cases, you would use
it as a back up solutions. 

Koojana

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:29:43 +0200

Hi John,

El 03/08/2005, a las 9:51, [email-masked] escribió:

>> VoIP

FWIW this is something i would consider relevant to work on

i am not sure this work is chartered somewhere else, where did you 
think this is being considered?

Regards, marcelo

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:36:46 +0200

El 03/08/2005, a las 3:07, Romain KUNTZ escribió:

> available,

how do you know that a better one is available?

regards, marcelo

>  then it switches to this one (kind of interface preference mechanism, 
> where you put a priority on each interface). In that case the MN-HA 
> tunnel is moved from one interface to amother.
> some policies, or send all your traffic to one interface, it's up to 
> the user's policies.
>
> -- 
> Romain KUNTZ
> [email-masked]
>