using MH is not a magic "re-use"

 > > => The interface between the LFN and the MR is
out of scope of both
 > >  nemo and monami6. But assuming that the MR is
somehow informed of
 > >  the LFN's choice,
 > 
 > How?  There isn't any way for LFNs to inform MR about
delegating
 > authorization.

=> Huh? What authorisation does the LFN delegate for the
MR to send a BU
for the entire prefix, including its own address???

 > > Of course the MR is authorised
 > 
 > For MR to be authorized do flow bindings for the
entire prefix it
 > would need a mechanism whereby all LFNs in that
network authorize the
 > MR do these flow bindings.  

=> Please answer my question above. 

 > > to send BUs for the entire prefix, which includes
all addresses, so
 > >  yes it can send a BU for a single address.
 > 
 > I don't get that.  NEMOv6 BUs are not per-LFN, they're

 > either explicit
 > (prefixes) or implicit (all hosts that HA's routing
table decides).
 > LFN doesn't inform MR neither about BUs nor about its
flows.

=> But the MR sends the BU for the entire prefix anyway,
regardless of
what the LFN thinks. I'm surprised you're bringing this up,
how is the
MR authorised to send a BU for everyone or inject routes for
a prefix
that includes all MNNs not just the LFN?? 

Hesham

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

Soliman, Hesham wrote:
>>> => The interface between the LFN and the MR
is out of scope of 
>>> both nemo and monami6. But assuming that the MR
is somehow 
>>> informed of the LFN's choice,
>> 
>> How?  There isn't any way for LFNs to inform MR
about delegating
>>  authorization.
> 
> => Huh? What authorisation does the LFN delegate for
the MR to send
>  a BU for the entire prefix, including its own
address???

Because HA is sure that MR is allowed to send a BU for that
prefix as
suggested by the Prefix Table, which is hard-wired.

A HA wouldn't have a way to check addresses in the flow
bindings
unless the Prefix Table were extended.  And one can't extend
the
Prefix Table with hardwired preferences, because there's no
way for HA
to know in advance what apps may or may not run on LFNs.

>>> Of course the MR is authorised
>> 
>> For MR to be authorized do flow bindings for the
entire prefix it
>>  would need a mechanism whereby all LFNs in that
network 
>> authorize the MR do these flow bindings.
> 
> => Please answer my question above.

See above.

>>> to send BUs for the entire prefix, which
includes all 
>>> addresses, so yes it can send a BU for a single
address.
>> 
>> I don't get that.  NEMOv6 BUs are not per-LFN,
they're either 
>> explicit (prefixes) or implicit (all hosts that
HA's routing 
>> table decides). LFN doesn't inform MR neither about
BUs nor about
>>  its flows.
> 
> => But the MR sends the BU for the entire prefix
anyway, regardless
>  of what the LFN thinks. I'm surprised you're bringing
this up, how
>  is the MR authorised to send a BU for everyone or
inject routes 
> for a prefix that includes all MNNs not just the LFN??

The MR doesn't inject any route without HA's prior
hard-wired approval.

You seem to make a distinction between LFNs and MNNs.  Flow
preferencess of MNNs that are actually MNs (not LFNs) can't
be
pre-configured at MR's HA anyways.  So we're left with LFN
discussion
only.

One can't instruct a MR's HA about the flow preferences of
some random
MN that may come by.  And that MN's flow preferences have no
sense on
the MR.

Alex

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

Soliman, Hesham wrote:
>>> => The interface between the LFN and the MR
is out of scope of 
>>> both nemo and monami6. But assuming that the MR
is somehow 
>>> informed of the LFN's choice,
>> 
>> How?  There isn't any way for LFNs to inform MR
about delegating
>>  authorization.
> 
> => Huh? What authorisation does the LFN delegate for
the MR to send
>  a BU for the entire prefix, including its own
address???

Because HA is sure that MR is allowed to send a BU for that
prefix as
suggested by the Prefix Table, which is hard-wired.

A HA wouldn't have a way to check addresses in the flow
bindings
unless the Prefix Table were extended.  And one can't extend
the
Prefix Table with hardwired preferences, because there's no
way for HA
to know in advance what apps may or may not run on LFNs.

>>> Of course the MR is authorised
>> 
>> For MR to be authorized do flow bindings for the
entire prefix it
>>  would need a mechanism whereby all LFNs in that
network 
>> authorize the MR do these flow bindings.
> 
> => Please answer my question above.

See above.

>>> to send BUs for the entire prefix, which
includes all 
>>> addresses, so yes it can send a BU for a single
address.
>> 
>> I don't get that.  NEMOv6 BUs are not per-LFN,
they're either 
>> explicit (prefixes) or implicit (all hosts that
HA's routing 
>> table decides). LFN doesn't inform MR neither about
BUs nor about
>>  its flows.
> 
> => But the MR sends the BU for the entire prefix
anyway, regardless
>  of what the LFN thinks. I'm surprised you're bringing
this up, how
>  is the MR authorised to send a BU for everyone or
inject routes 
> for a prefix that includes all MNNs not just the LFN??

The MR doesn't inject any route without HA's prior
hard-wired approval.

You seem to make a distinction between LFNs and MNNs.  Flow
preferencess of MNNs that are actually MNs (not LFNs) can't
be
pre-configured at MR's HA anyways.  So we're left with LFN
discussion
only.

One can't instruct a MR's HA about the flow preferences of
some random
MN that may come by.  And that MN's flow preferences have no
sense on
the MR.

Alex

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

Soliman, Hesham wrote:
>>> => The interface between the LFN and the MR
is out of scope of 
>>> both nemo and monami6. But assuming that the MR
is somehow 
>>> informed of the LFN's choice,
>> 
>> How?  There isn't any way for LFNs to inform MR
about delegating
>>  authorization.
> 
> => Huh? What authorisation does the LFN delegate for
the MR to send
>  a BU for the entire prefix, including its own
address???

Because HA is sure that MR is allowed to send a BU for that
prefix as
suggested by the Prefix Table, which is hard-wired.

A HA wouldn't have a way to check addresses in the flow
bindings
unless the Prefix Table were extended.  And one can't extend
the
Prefix Table with hardwired preferences, because there's no
way for HA
to know in advance what apps may or may not run on LFNs.

>>> Of course the MR is authorised
>> 
>> For MR to be authorized do flow bindings for the
entire prefix it
>>  would need a mechanism whereby all LFNs in that
network 
>> authorize the MR do these flow bindings.
> 
> => Please answer my question above.

See above.

>>> to send BUs for the entire prefix, which
includes all 
>>> addresses, so yes it can send a BU for a single
address.
>> 
>> I don't get that.  NEMOv6 BUs are not per-LFN,
they're either 
>> explicit (prefixes) or implicit (all hosts that
HA's routing 
>> table decides). LFN doesn't inform MR neither about
BUs nor about
>>  its flows.
> 
> => But the MR sends the BU for the entire prefix
anyway, regardless
>  of what the LFN thinks. I'm surprised you're bringing
this up, how
>  is the MR authorised to send a BU for everyone or
inject routes 
> for a prefix that includes all MNNs not just the LFN??

The MR doesn't inject any route without HA's prior
hard-wired approval.

You seem to make a distinction between LFNs and MNNs.  Flow
preferencess of MNNs that are actually MNs (not LFNs) can't
be
pre-configured at MR's HA anyways.  So we're left with LFN
discussion
only.

One can't instruct a MR's HA about the flow preferences of
some random
MN that may come by.  And that MN's flow preferences have no
sense on
the MR.

Alex

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6ietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6