Hi Pete, Thanks for your review and comments. Let me come back to you with responses in the next day or two.
-Raj On 3/6/12 3:48 PM, "ext Peter McCann" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, Raj, Carl, and Jouni, > >I have some comments on draft-patil-dmm-issues-and-approaches2dmm-00. > >I agree with most of Section 4, "Issues with current mobility models". >However, >I'd like to point out that existing networks are not just centralized in >the manner >you point out, they also tend to have a hierarchical structure, e.g., the >S-GW/P-GW split in 3GPP EPC. Therefore, the issue you outline in Section >4.3 >("Inefficient Routing and signaling overhead") is not quite true of the >3GPP >EPC, which can handle many mobility events in a localized manner similar >to >HMIP. > >The first paragraph of Section 7 talks about source address selection, >and the >need to modify applications so that they request the kind of address that >they >want. I tend to think that applications will remain unmodified for some >time >to come; however, most applications fit into the paradigm of opening >short-lived >connections to a server and could be accommodated with some sort of >automatic >handling in the MN's IP stack. > >I found the last paragraph of Section 7 quite interesting. I too think >that there >is an important piece missing that you call "seamless mobility anchor >relocation". >I think that the use of an interior routing protocol is spot on. In >fact, if you >read draft-mccann-dmm-flatarch-00, I propose just that. I think we can >use such >an anchor relocation protocol to make each access router in an autonomous >system >(or smaller region of an autonomous system) a temporary anchor for a >given prefix. >In my draft I propose running I-BGP on each AR and sending BGP UPDATES >into the >network upon localized mobility events. Such a protocol can also be used >as a >substitute for the proxy ND technique that is currently specified to >"grab" the >MN's packets at the HA. By using a routing protocol, the HA can reach >across >several routing hops so it doesn't necessarily need to be on the home >link (which >can be the first AR to which the MN attached). I think this would also >enable us >to unify the authentication protocols used at the AR with the >authentication protocol >used at the HA. The ARs are just like HAs that don't have to tunnel the >data anywhere >because the MN is locally connected. > >Does it make sense to you? > >-- >Peter J. McCann >Huawei Technologies (USA) >[email protected] >+1 908 541 3563 >Rm. C-0105, 400 Crossings Blvd. (2nd floor), Bridgewater, NJ 08807-2863 >USA > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
