Sri, Sorry if my mail was too direct. It is not my intention to suggest getting rid of anything.
Frankly speaking I don't know what DMM is, and I still have to review the draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-02 Whenever one says one particular protocol I have a problem with each. For example, but just an example, I have growing problems articulating an explanation of the lack of MIP deployment. Deployment, testing and prototype interest are valuable indicators. Alex Le 11/11/2013 17:08, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit :
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
