Behcet, thanks for clarifying more clearly. :)
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2...@gmail.com>wrote: -- snip -- > > > > > Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I'm sure that RR/RS just only know about > > routes, nor whole mobility information exists. When I see a node which > plays > > MME role, the node could also be a BGP speaker to export the mobility > info > > transformed to the routes. > > > > So MME should be BGP speaker? > If not then what would happen? > > Precisely, say MME, which 3GPP defined mobility management entity, doesn't have the BGP function. IMO, If the entity can be coexist with BGP in a single node, an interface for exposing/retrieving mobility information would be required between them. > > What do you mean by "topologically incorrect"? > > Is that the assigned prefixes are disordered to be aggregated? > > > > Yes. UE moves to another EPC-E which supports a different prefix than UE > has? > You need to keep host-based prefixes as routes, is there another way? > > In the draft, as long as an UE keeps same prefix during hand-over among EPC-E routers, those routers belong to a same group that is expected to preserve same prefix for the UE. It should be initial attach when the UE is attached to different EPC-E and assigned different prefix from previous one. Please read section 3.3 and 3.4 of the draft. cheers, --satoru
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
