Hi, On Nov 14, 2012, at 8:28 PM, Konstantinos Pentikousis wrote:
> Hi Jouni, all, > > |Maybe we need to then say something about it like > | "Divergence from other evolutionary trends in network > | architectures such as distribution of content delivery" ? > > Sounds good to me. Good. > |No (without smile). But that is another trend to opposite direction > |and we should have a sufficient argument for our assertion here imho. What > |is so fundamentally resource consuming in "mobility context" handling > |that it requires distribution? Is it just a combination of all > |functions in one place (that has little to do with mobility per se)? > > I think scalability here refers to the "hub-and-spoke" nature of the routing > fabric as introduced by a "centralized" mobility anchor. You may have valid > technical and/or operational reasons for adopting a hub-and-spoke model, > that's ok. But maybe others may want an alternative model which aims for > different optimalities, and for those the hub-and-spoke model is not, well, > "scalable". > > SDN, well the OpenFlow flavor of it anyway, is "logically centralized" wrt > network control, not how packets move around. SDN can do hub-and-spoke as > well as other routing fabrics. Information-centric networking, another major > trend, is definitely not pointing towards the merits of the current type of > centralization... So I think PS3 is valid. PS3 says "centralized route management".. I would be far more comfortable if PS3 says "centralized tunnel management" which is more concretely what we do today as per hub-and-spoke type tunneled traffic deployments. > |I would need to implement the "mobility stack" whatever support function > |anyway even if none of my application care about it. > > If you are absolutely sure that none of your apps needs mobility support, and > none will ever need it in the future, then there's no reason to implement it, > sure. But if there's a chance one app may need it and 100 won't, then perhaps > you get to implement it. The difference is that, if you do implement that > "mobility stack", with conditional support you run that code for one app only > (and route the respective packets accordingly), while with today's approach > you do the same for 101 apps. Fair reasoning. However, what is the "mobility stack" here then? Is it something we today understand as a MIP enabled stack or could it be something more generic? What I mean here is that we should be very cautious with MN side impacts not to freak out less mobility cautious people. If the "mobility stack" could be beneficial also outside mobility use cases that would be awesome. - Jouni > > Best Regards, > > Kostas > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
