Hi Jouni, All, Sorry if this has been captured before..
Shouldn't there be a very basic requirement that should first outline why MIP6 and derivatives could not be deployed in scenarios suitable for DMM? I reckon this assumes a clear description of what DMM is exists. Thanks. -Rajeev On 5/17/12 4:56 PM, "jouni korhonen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Few comments/questions here: > > On May 7, 2012, at 8:58 PM, h chan wrote: > >> REQ-2: Transparency to Upper Layers >> The DMM solutions SHALL enable transparency above the IP layer. Such >> transparency is needed for the application flows that cannot cope with a >> change of IP address and when mobile hosts or entire mobile networks change >> their point of attachment to the Internet, but SHOULD NOT be taken as the >> default behavior. > > "SHALL enable" but "SHOULD NOT be taken as the default behavior" seem to > conflict. So, what is really meant here? Does this mean something like > "MUST implement, SHOULD use" type of solution? Or can one leave transparency > completely away if the applications/hosts just don't care whether IP changes > or not? > >> >> REQ-2M (Motivation for REQ-2) >> The goal of this requirement is to >> enable more efficient use of network resources and more efficient routing by >> not invoking mobility support when there is no such need. > > Does this still mean the mobility support must be implement > even if it is not used? > >> >> RELEVANT problem: >> PS5: Wasting resources to support mobile nodes not needing mobility support >> IP mobility support is not always required. For example, some applications do >> not need a stable IP address during handover, i.e. IP session continuity. >> Sometimes, the entire application session runs while the terminal does not >> change the point of attachment. In these situations that do not require IP >> mobility support, network resources are wasted when mobility context is set >> up. Network resources are also wasted when the via routes are set up for many >> MNs that do not require IP mobility support. >> >> OTHER related problem >> O-PS1: Mobility signaling overhead with peer-to-peer communication >> While mobility management enables a mobile host to be reachable, the hosts >> may then communicate directly so that the mobility support is no longer >> needed. Taking the need of mobility support as the default behavior will >> waste network resources. >> O-PS2: Lack of user-centricity >> Centralized deployment compared with distributed mobility management may be >> less capable to support user-centricity. Example in the lack of >> user-centricity is to provide mobility support to all mobile nodes by default >> regardless of whether the user needs it or not. > > I have issues to parse O-PS2.. the motivation makes sense though but > the title "lack of user-centricity" is somewhat confusing.. what does > forced/always-on mobility support has to do with user centricity? > > - Jouni > > >> >> (The above has been drafted with contributions, inputs and discussions from >> various people. Additional contributions and comments are most welcome.) >> >> H Anthony Chan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
