Hello Xinpeng, In the legacy thinking, the mobility anchor is in the core network (centrally-located HA). That's the basic Mobile IP design. Now people are also considering placing anchors in the access network. And then there's one more possibility, which is to place an anchor near/on the corresponding node.
Please see the Cnet-homing presentation for more: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-dmm-2.pdf Questions/comments welcome. Charlie: Yes, we cannot assume there'll be an anchor on/near every CN. Our proposal takes that into account. In fact, today there's no anchor in every access network either. There's basically none in any WiFi network today. Both situation is subject to change based on DMM developments. Alper On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Charlie P. wrote: > Hello folks, > > One difference is that a mobile node is likely to be located in a network > that supports mobility, whereas the network hosting a general CN may not have > any mobility support features. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Weixinpeng > Sent: Mar 17, 2014 11:59 PM > To: Alper Yegin , Jouni Korhonen > Cc: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" > Subject: Re: [DMM] DMM WG next steps > > Hi Alper, > Is there any essential difference between placing the mobility function > closer to the user and placing > the mobility function closer to the CN? I think in some sense the user host > and it’s corresponding node are the same for mobility management protocol. > So what’s the reason to distinguish between them? > > BR, > xinpeng > From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alper Yegin > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:04 PM > To: Jouni Korhonen > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] DMM WG next steps > > Jouni, > > Thanks for the text. > > DMM can be used to realise such a distributed deployment > model, by distributing mobility functions more closer to the user. > > > This part excludes the approaches that place the mobility function on or near > the CN. > > I recommend the following revision: > > > DMM can be used to realise such a distributed deployment > model, by distributing mobility functions more closer to the user > and/or its corresponding nodes. > > Alper > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 12:09 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > > > Folks, > > DMM WG has done some progress lately. The requirements document has > already left the building and the gap analysis is heading to WGLC as > we speak. It is about the time to think what we should do next now > that we have grown out of the infancy. > > A smaller group of mobility enthusiasts have been discussing about > possible next steps and how the possible new charter would look like. > The current very draft text template can be found here: > https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter > > As you can see, we are still in early stages and all input it welcome. > Obviously, possible re-chartering depends on many things. For example, > things like getting the gap analysis out of the WG and what the IESG > says. Nothing has been fixed or decided yet. Anyhow, we will start the > discussion on re-chartering with the expectation that the DMM WG will > re-charter and continue developing new solutions and/or enhancements > in the IP mobility space. > > - Jouni & Dapeng > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
