Sri and all I didn’t capture all the discussion, but I agree with your architecture and terminology in this pictures. Sir, where can i find your architecture draft of this?
regards, ryuji On 2014/07/15, at PM 11:09, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]> wrote: > Alper, > > We should not attempt to map these terms to existing protocol functions at > this stage. All we are saying, in a controller-based model the CP is > terminated on the controller/(Home CPA) and the user-plane is terminated on > the Home DPA. The interface between these entities (CPA and DPA) is > OpenFlow/FORCES/XYZ. Unless, we bring the access and the home level > separation, there is no "classic" mobility protocol interface in such model. > If we keep this very flat, there is just a controller and a bunch of > data-plane nodes with a OpenFlow type interface. In one variation, the access > DPN and the Home DPA can be colored in the same way with the same function, > keeping it very flat. Alternatively, the Access DPN can have forwarding state > that will allow it forward the packets to the Home DPA. > > > > <763C6945-9163-4593-B1B1-B8418DC06CF6.jpg> > > > > > > If we bring the Access and Home network aspects in the above model, the CPA > functions can be split into "Access CPA" and "Home CPA". In such model, the > classic mobility protocol interfaces can be used between these two entities. > > > <659612F5-BC77-40CD-9686-FBE918D6735B.jpg> > > > > > Here, I can map the functions as following: > > Home CPA ==> Home Agent (CP), LMA (CP), GGSN (CP), PGW (CP) > Home DPA ==> Home Agent (UP), LMA (UP), GGSN (UP), PGW (UP) > > Access CPA ==> Foreign Agent (CP), MAG (CP), SGSN (CP), SGW (CP), > Access DPN ==> Foreign Agent (UP), MAG (UP), SGSN (CP), SGW (UP), > > > > > Regards > Sri > > > > > > > From: Alper Yegin <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:01 AM > To: Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]> > Cc: Marco Liebsch <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DMM] demand for DMM traffic steering > > Sri, > > I was asking about that for the sake of getting all of the details (or > following the discussion better). > > > HoA to COA binding change (EID to Locator mapping) should not be looked at > > as gateway relocation. > > Unless we move the address across anchors by updating the routing > > infrastructure, there is never > > a DPA migration. The moment we talk about Locator, it implies we have > > access DPA and home DPA, > > and change of access DPA is not relocation, its only a state change on the > > home DPA. > > So, in your terminology MAG is a access DPA and LMA is a home DPA, right? > And as such, both MAG and LMA are called "anchors". > Calling MAG an anchor may come as a surprise to some people. > We need to nail down the terminology. > > Alper > > > > > > On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:00 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > >> Alper – That can be fixed. >> >> >> Sri >> >> From: Alper Yegin <[email protected]> >> Date: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:36 AM >> To: Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]> >> Cc: Marco Liebsch <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] demand for DMM traffic steering >> >> Sri and Marco, >> >> Is any of what you are describing captured in the existing drafts? If so, >> please provide the pointers. >> >> Alper >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
