Hi Pierrick,
Le 09/01/2013 14:24, [email protected] a écrit :
Hi Alex,
Please see inline.
Pierrick
-----Message d'origine----- De : [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Alexandru Petrescu
Envoyé : mercredi 9 janvier 2013 11:26 À : [email protected] Objet : Re:
[DMM] brief comparison (was: Call for WG Adoption of a "current
practices and gap analysis" document)
Hello DMMers,
I take advantage of this request to expose briefly a comparison
between the two drafts draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-03 and
draft-liu-dmm-best- practices-gap-analysis-01.
The first analyses gaps between DMM reqs and MIP6, MIP6-RO, HMIP,
HAswitch, flow mobility, src adr selection. Each of these is an
actual mechanism.
The second: although it also lists such mechanisms, it guides the
gap analysis by a few mobility management functions, which are
abstracted out of the existing protocols. These functions are
anchoring, mobility routing, internetwork location management,
location update.
I do have a preference for this latter approach.
However, I also think a refinement of its abstraction is possible.
For example, there are more functions which MIP6 does and which are
not reflected in the abstraction, e.g. DHAAD.
You're right. Actually your comment is related to the "DMM and the
framework discussion" has been initiated by Jouni:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg00542.html
clearly, the functional framework is to be refined but I think we can
agree on the relevance of the approach for the analysis. Right?
Yes, I the approach is relevant for the analysis.
Also, the route optimization mechanism seems better analyzed in
the former document.
Finally, none of the documents mentions the tunnelling-vs-non-
tunnelling approaches, although the former draft leads indirectly
to a location-id split method (which includes translation in that
case, see Liebsch, translation which is incomplete too because not
mentioning the implemented NPT IPv6 RFC6292) (and non-tunnelling
host-based routes are possible without translation).
Actually, as you mentioned, draft-liu does not claim to cover all
possible protocols. This I-D focuses, intentionally, on protocols
that are deployed today. However, the list of protocols can of course
be expanded if useful.
Ah I see, that's why. I agree - protocols that are deployed today.
Alex
Pierrick
That is for discussion only, Subject changed.
Yours,
Alex
Le 19/12/2012 21:25, Jouni Korhonen a écrit :
Folks,
We are unfortunately slipping our milestone, our (chairs)
apologies for that. The next step is to select a "current
practices and gap analysis" document to serve as the basis for
the future WG document. We consider two documents on this topic
to choose from:
[1] draft-zuniga-dmm-gap-analysis-02 [2]
draft-liu-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01
and we as a WG need to decide which one is going to form the
_basis_ for the WG document.
Please voice your preference either for [1] or for [2] on the
mailing list. We would appreciate if you can also provide a
one-liner justification for your selection. The chairs will
determine if there is (rough) consensus from active WG
participants to proceed with selecting one document against the
other.
The call starts today 19th Dec 2012 and ends by 10th Jan 2013.
We
have
a longer three week call now due the holiday season in between.
- Jouni & Julien _______________________________________________
dmm mailing list [email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list
[email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi
que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si
ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France
Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified,
changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
