Alper, On Jun 11, 2014, at 10:54 PM, Alper Yegin wrote:
> Hi Jouni, > > >>> o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a gateway >>> and >>> mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility anchor switching >>> that go beyond what has been, for example, described in RFC 6097, >>> 6463, >>> and 5142. The solution should also define a mechanism for preserving >>> ongoing mobility sessions in a single administrative or IGP routing >>> domain, which would involve directing traffic towards the new anchor. >>> >>> o Forwarding path and signalling management: the mobility agent that >>> handles >>> the mobility signalling interacts with the network elements in the >>> DMM network >>> for managing the forwarding state associated with a mobile node's IP >>> traffic. >>> These two functions may or may not be collocated. Furthermore, the >>> forwarding >>> state may also be distributed into multiple network elements instead >>> of a >>> single anchor like network element. Define required protocol >>> extensions to >>> allow described forwarding path and signalling management. >>> >>> >>> These above two seem inseparable. >>> I recommend we list them as one item. >> >> Hrmph.. not sure I agree. >> >>> (The separation was between "anchor selection" and "data-path management >>> signaling" before. At that time, it was a clearer separation. But even at >>> that time I was suggesting combining the two items. In this latest text, >>> the separation got blurred. The title of the first item, along with >>> references to "switching", "preserving sessions", "directing traffic" all >>> point to the context of the second one…) >> >> I see your point/concern. Since I (personally) see the enhanced mobility >> anchoring more towards maintenance work, I am tempted to have these two >> different milestones from the beginning. We could remove the last sentence >> of the anchoring milestone.. >> > > So, what's called "enhanced mobility anchoring" refers to 'maintenance work', > and It could, since we specifically point three PMIP RFCs on a related topic: daa daa on anchor selection, solution for redirect during session establishment and solution for anchor switch that does not address what happens to ongoing sessions. When you do better than those, you are approaching a solution that allows one to better distribute anchors. Still very PMIPish, though. > "Forwarding path and signaling management" refers to 'new DMM solution'? Yes.. we specifically do not refer how and based on what to achieve that. > > I didn't get that from the text… So is the "Forwarding path and signaling management" intent unclear in DMM scope? > In my understanding, what we have been calling "maintenance" is simply > PMIP/CMIP improvements/fixes in broad context -- not related to a DMM > solution. > > On the other hand, that first bullet above does read like a DMM solution to > me. > > I'm confused… what is maintenance, what is the objective of first bullet, > what is the objective of second bullet… First bullet intent should be clear, continue PMIP where it left on this anchor part. Second bullet gives you much more freedom. That is how I divided it in my organic compute unit. - Jouni > > Alper > > > > > > > > > > > >> - Jouni >> >> >>> We can note that separate anchor discovery & selection drafts may be >>> produced (opening the door for split documents, while not forcing people to >>> split any solution into two parts because the charter said so..) >>> >>> >>> Alper >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 11, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> A heavily updated charter text in the github. I am not sure it addresses >>>> all wording concerns folks had. But.. flame on ;) >>>> >>>> Reading the telco notes I realize I do not have nor have seen the slides >>>> shown during the call, so probably the "re-anchoring" sanitization in the >>>> charter text went too far compared what was discussed in the call. Please >>>> check. >>>> >>>> If you have concerns on the milestones and specifically their timeline, >>>> express your opinion with a new month+year combination. >>>> >>>> The cooperation with other WGs is heavily reworded. Basically it says now >>>> that DMM can mock other protocols but those then need review & >>>> ratification from the protocol "owning" WG, just like commonly done with >>>> DHCP & RADIUS. >>>> >>>> Routing based solutions are now explicitly stated to be restricted to IGP >>>> routing domain and must not propagate routing updates outside the IGP >>>> routing domain. >>>> >>>> Regarding the "enhanced mobility anchoring" milestone that could also be >>>> put under maintenance: >>>> >>>> Work items related to the PMIPv6 maintenance include: >>>> >>>> o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a >>>> gateway and mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility >>>> anchor switching that go beyond what has been, for example, >>>> described in RFC 6097, 6463, and 5142. The solution should also >>>> define a mechanism for preserving ongoing mobility sessions in a >>>> single administrative or IGP routing domain, which would involve >>>> directing traffic towards the new anchor. >>>> >>>> Opinions? >>>> >>>> >>>> - Jouni >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 6/6/2014 5:37 PM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti: >>>>> Hello Jouni, DMM folks, >>>>> >>>>> We better clarify what "anchor re-selection" stands for. >>>>> If it is about selecting different anchors for different IP flows, that's >>>>> one thing. >>>>> If it is about changing the IP anchor in the middle of an IP flow, that's >>>>> another thing. And that other thing needs to be scoped out. A basic >>>>> understanding of a use case would be appreciated (just an explanation for >>>>> discussion, I'm not asking for another I-D!), and identification of >>>>> various aspects of that scenario which translate to work items for DMM WG. >>>>> >>>>> I won't be in the call today. So, consider this for a discussion. Follow >>>>> up on the mailing list afterwards would be good. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Alper >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Minor changes.. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> IMHO..the charter as it is today, would allow pretty much any solution >>>>>> from legacy anchoring to herd of pigeons carrying IP.. ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> I have put in editorial changes of my own and clear text proposals >>>>>> received from others. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Jouni >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> dmm mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
