Alex - So, the proposal is to get rid of the MIP signaling plane and
piggyback on some routing updates, or over OpenFlow ? So, what is the
result, we use a generic non-MIP interfaces and make them look like MIP
interfaces ? What is the point ? This is DMM ?
Regards
Sri
On 11/11/13 7:51 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>I think it may converge.
>
>I am not sure whether we have reached a point where we can discuss
>without assuming a particular protocol (i.e. neither MIP, nor BGP), but
>I think we can discuss route update method vs tunnel-based method.
>
>We can also discuss whether new functionality is needed on the mobile
>entity, vs whether the first-hop router does much on its behalf
>('proxy'). Which may bring in a question of whether a Mobile Host or a
>Mobile Router is considered.
>
>Effects of route updates may be too heavy on a network ('route churn')
>or less so; it may depend, among several factors, on the topology and
>the addressing architecture of the fixed network.
>
>Routing protocols are highly distributed concepts, yet many include
>particularly designated entities, which have particular roles (not all
>routers are equal) - these could host what we expect to be more
>controlling points.
>
>Alex
>
>>
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
