How about changing PS3 to the following: Low scalability of centralized tunnel and mobility context maintenance
Setting up tunnels through a central anchor which maintains the mobility context for each MN therein requires more resources at the centralized anchor, thus reducing scalability. Distributing the routes and the mobility context maintenance function among different networks can increase scalability. The current text is: Low scalability of centralized route and mobility context maintenance Setting up routes through a central anchor and maintaining mobility context for each MN therein requires more resources in a centralized design, thus reducing scalability. Distributing the route maintenance function and the mobility context maintenance function among different network entities can increase scalability. H Anthony Chan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of jouni korhonen Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:57 AM To: Konstantinos Pentikousis Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DMM] comments on draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-02 Hi, On Nov 14, 2012, at 8:28 PM, Konstantinos Pentikousis wrote: >> | "PS3: Low scalability of centralized route and mobility context >> | maintenance" >> | >> | o Isn't e.g. the SDN evolution just doing to the opposite? Highly >> | centralized management point for traffic steering? I would reconsider >> | PS3 unless we have more evidence that this is really an issue. Or >> | then we need to point out something that makes it more context >> | specific for DMM or mobility. >> >> Oh dear, should we discuss SDN scalability here? :) > |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. - Jouni > > Best Regards, > > Kostas > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
