Subject: Re: [Mobike] WGLC on the design draft

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:13:46 +0100

hi francis, 

thanks for the feedback.

> 6.3.  Message presentation
> 
>    ...
>    Load balancing is currently outside the scope of MOBIKE, however
> 
> => as you shot in your feet with the non standard definition of load
> balancing now you are in trouble because you still don't want the real
> load balancing (multiple addresses in the same SA at the same time)
> but want the thing in the middle (one address per SA but different
> addresses in SAs and/or in time).
> 
i am not sure what exactly you would like to have changed. 
could you please elaborate a bit?

ciao
hannes
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:47:56 +0100

=> IMHO the problem is simple: there are 3 definitions of load balancing:
 Charter's one:
    o Load balancing. Multihoming is supported only in the sense of
      failing over to another interface; sending traffic over multiple
      addresses using the same SA is not supported.
 (note this is the commonly accepted one)

 Section 3.2 one:
       Note that MOBIKE does not aim to support load balancing between
       multiple IP addresses.  That is, each peer uses only one of the
       available IP addresses at a given point in time.
 (note this is a very limited, and IMHO too limited)

 Section 6.3 one which is not really described.

What I'd like is a *place* for the limited load balancing (which is not
commonly named load balancing outside the two current documents as it is
*not* covered by the charter limitation) where a SA uses one address at
one time but not all SAs use the same address.
Now how to do this? 6.3 doesn't seem to be the right place because the text
is clearly about possible address lists when what is needed are SPI lists.
So I suggest to fix the text in 3.2 and does not say that MOBIKE but the
current design does not aim to support load balancing (keeping the same
definition).
Note I am not the only person who can compare the design document and
the charter so IMHO this should be really addressed before the IETF last
call.

Regards
   
[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:51:29 +0200

Francis Dupont writes:
>  IMHO the problem is simple: there are 3 definitions of load
>  balancing:

I do not agree that there is 3 definitions of load balancing. 

>  (note this is a very limited, and IMHO too limited)

I think those definitions are mostly same, the charter version does
not say anything what happens with multiple SAs, thus it keeps that
open. The charter definition still says that it is failing over to
another interface, which means it will not use multiple interfaces at
all, it uses one and if that fails, it fails over to another
interface, using only that after that.

>  Section 6.3 one which is not really described.

Section 6.3 does not define any load balancing, it simply says that in
future we might work on the load balancing issues too, thus we need to
make sure our protocol is such it can be extended. 

> one time but not all SAs use the same address.

You can already do that. It is in the protocol. Simply create multiple
IKE SAs and each of them can use separate address. Each IPsec SA
inside those IKE SA moves along with the IKE SA.

So we already have that feature you are asking for. It is also
described in the design document (last sentence of the section 5.3). 

> is clearly about possible address lists when what is needed are SPI lists.

6.3 is definately wrong place. The section 5.3 already talks about
list of SPIs and also list of ranges of SPI values. 

> current design does not aim to support load balancing (keeping the same

Load balancing in any forms is explicit non-goal for MOBIKE WG. The
charter says that very clearly.

The charter also lists that multihoming is only supported to support
failing over, not for other reasons. It also explictly says that
usingtraffic over mulple address for same SA is outside the scope, but
that does not mean it would be the only thing covered by load
balancing.

Load balancing in general is outside the scope of MOBIKE WG.

> the charter so IMHO this should be really addressed before the IETF last

I do not really find anything that would be conflicting between the
charter and the design document about the load balancing. Both of them
say load balancing is outside the scope of MOBIKE WG and the current
protocols. 
-- 
[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:50:42 +0100

=> what you support and what I want are two different things and we use
the same name, so I don't understand why you disagree.

   >  (note this is a very limited, and IMHO too limited)
   
   I think those definitions are mostly same,

=> no, there are subtle but important differences (we should disagree
about the meaning of "mostly" too :-).

   the charter version does not say anything what happens with
   multiple SAs, thus it keeps that open.

=> yes, the charter is open, mostly because it has to address more
than the mobility problem...

   The charter definition still says that it is failing over to
   another interface, which means it will not use multiple interfaces at
   all, it uses one and if that fails, it fails over to another
   interface, using only that after that.
   
=> hum: "or to use multiple interfaces simultaenously"...
So I am afraid you assume too much about the charter says.

   > one time but not all SAs use the same address.
   
   You can already do that.

=> yes, I can already manage mobility without Mobike too.

   It is in the protocol. Simply create multiple
   IKE SAs and each of them can use separate address. Each IPsec SA
   inside those IKE SA moves along with the IKE SA.
   
   So we already have that feature you are asking for.

=> no, I have no direct support of this feature.

   It is also described in the design document (last sentence of the
   section 5.3).

   
=> but this text is not about proposing a solution but explaining why
the current proposal does nothing.

   
=> not in any form, only "sending traffic over multiple addresses
using the same SA is not supported".

   The charter also lists that multihoming is only supported to support
   failing over, not for other reasons. It also explictly says that
   using traffic over multiple address for same SA is outside the scope, but
   that does not mean it would be the only thing covered by load
   balancing.

=> yes, and in fact multihoming too... (:-)

=> I'll forward your message to the MONAMI6 people and we'll see if
your vision of multihoming is really compatible with the current work
in other WGs.

Regards