Hi Marco,
On 11/15/13 1:56 AM, "Marco Liebsch" <marco.lieb...@neclab.eu> wrote: > >Depends. I assume that the session you describe is a mobility session >(binding ID-Locator), >not a data session. If the mobility session remains anchored at the >previous attachment point, >there will be a tunnel towards the new attachment point, which may serve >as MAG. Optionally, the new attachment point may provide a new anchor and >an additional >mobility session, hence an additional HoA, which depend on the MN to >handle multiple >IPs. Other approach would imply moving the MN's mobility session from the >previous anchor/point of attachment >to the new one. Then there is at least no tunnel needed to forward >packets from the previous >anchor to the new one. But the anchored HoA or HNP at the new anchor is >topologically >incorrect. That means the routing plane above anchors can take care about >delivering >downlink packets to the MN's current anchor. Agree that that's an impact >to the routing policy >plane, but a valid approach to achieve more optimal routes. Dated: 01/Aug/2011, reflecting our progress. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04766.html IMO, one can realize DMM by the the ways of a.) Adopting improved Gateway Selection approaches b.) Carrying property meta-data in PIO options and evolving the client. Additionally, aggregating the control plane and distribute the DP is another consideration. With this, one can realize a flat network with optimized data plane. We can get there with incremental extensions to the current protocols. With the approach of allocating short lived sessions, can we not avoid session re-anchoring and avoid impact to data plane ? Will this work ? > >Without re-anchoring the previous mobility session at the new anchor means >the previous anchor remains involved in the packet delivery. I was >talking about >the case where the previous mobility session will be transferred and >anchored at the new >mobility anchor. Only that enables short delivery paths, as the anchor >points of the >MN's IP address is close to the MN. But in that case the routing plane >needs >to support packet delivery for that MN. So, either by introducing tunnels >in the >routing plane (e.g. according to LISP), which I'd like to avoid. Or by >using per-host routes. >Or by using address translation to a routable address, which delivers the >packet >to the mobile's current anchor. But, if the approach is to allocate short lived sessions, then why deal with re-anchoring issue ? We can completely avoid RIB impact, avoid host route pollution, or exporting modified locator Id to EID mapping. The non-optimized DP lives there for a very short period after a MN migration and for certain sessions and for reasons of global reachability. Regards Sri _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
