The original comment was on "resources" in the problem statement PS3:
How about revising PS3 to the following without comparing resources:
PS3: Low scalability of centralized tunnel management and mobility
context maintenance
Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
mobility context for each MN in a centralized design increase
the processing at the anchor as the number of MNs increases.
Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility
context maintenance function among different network entities
with proper signaling protocol design can increase scalability.
H Anthony Chan
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of KIM,
BYOUNG-JO J (BYOUNG-JO)
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:24 AM
To: Peter McCann
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC #2 starts for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03
Very much agreed.
Also, distributed solutions can be concentrated as deployment needs dictate
using layer 2 means, as is done often in many present networks.
can't do the opposite with centralized solutions without a whole lot of
acrobatics.
"J" Kim
AT&T Labs - Research
http://sites.google.com/site/macsbug/
On May 17, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Peter McCann wrote:
> We shouldn't require all the traffic to pay the price of
> centralization just because some small subset of the flow need it. LI
> should be a very small proportion of the traffic, and those flows can
> be directed to a collection point as needed. If you really need
> per-flow, per-application charging, you can send meta-information
> about the flows to a charging collection box. No need to send the flows
> themselves.
>
> -Pete
>
>
> Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
>>
>>> Distributed solution: Take IP traffic directly from access router to
>>> the Internet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Counter argument.
>>
>>
>> It implies, LI, Charging, DPI Šetc on each of the distributed nodes.
>> Implies more "CAPEX and OPEX" ?
>>
>>
>> I'm not against distributed models and 6909 is the proof point. But,
>> IMO, it will hard to draw relation to cost models, based on traffic
>> exit points. You may need mobility hierarchy in the network for "n"
>> number of reasons and a centralized models for "m" number of reasons.
>> It more about deployment choice, dependent on many parameters.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/29/13 5:29 AM, "Alper Yegin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Charlie,
>>>
>>> No, it should be less.
>>>
>>> Distributed solution: Take IP traffic directly from access router to
>>> the Internet.
>>> Centralized solution: Take IP traffic from access router to a core
>>> router to the Internet.
>>>
>>> The latter suggests more CAPEX and OPEX.
>>>
>>> Alper
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2013, at 3:44 AM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Alper,
>>>>
>>>> I agree with your point, but it means that the total cost of the
>>>> distributed solution is even more expensive.... right?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Charlie P.
>>>>
>>>> On 4/26/2013 12:56 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
>>>>> Hi Charlie,
>>>>>
>>>>>> - It is claimed that a centralized architecture requires more
>>>>>> resources than a distributed architecture. This is usually
>>>>>> false. For instance, if a centralized node requires 100 units,
>>>>>> and 100 distributed nodes each require 1.03 units, the
>>>>>> distributed architecture requires 3 more units overall.
>>>>> This would be true for tasks that can be performed either on the
>>>>> distributed node or on the central node.
>>>>> But the essential task for DMM systems, IP forwarding, is not of
>>>>> that nature.
>>>>> In centralized architecture, that task needs to be performed
>>>>> *both* at the edge node and also at the central node (and in fact
>>>>> even in
>>>>> between) before the packets hit the Internet/mobile device.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even so, the additional expense of the distributed architecture
>>>>>> would often be a bargain for reasons of redundancy, resiliency,
>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alper
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Charlie P.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
_______________________________________________
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
