Alper,
7/16/2014 9:40 AM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
Hi Jouni,
Thank you for the review and feedback.
Please see below.
Alper,
I had a quick read on the document. There are few places that I need
clarification for my own education.. since I have a feeling that the text does
not say everyting it assumes a priori. Furthermore, I got some more editorial
comments.
Section 3. says:
Solutions operating above the IP layer include MPTCP, SCTP, SIP, and
application-specific ones. Availability of these protocols cannot be
I would add references to SCTP and SIP specifications that actually add the
handover functionality to the listed protocols. Also, there could be more
protocols to add like DCCP..
OK.
During the handovers are multiradio cases ruled out or also applicable or even
assumed? I cannot see that clearly from the motivation or solution part.
Just like for any of our base IETF protocols, we cannot assume multiple radios
exist on a given node.
So, this solution works even for single-radio nodes.
Ok.. I get confused by Figure 1 saying the sub-IP mobility is PMIPv6.
AFAIR what is in figure is somewhat stretching what PMIPv6 does now.
That is also what I meant about assumptions that are not said.
Section 4.1. says:
data-path optimization. On the other hand, above-IP solutions
provide data-path optimization but fail to provide seamless
handovers. The ideal solution would be based on coordianted
I do not agree this fully. "Above-IP solution" allow seamless handovers in
cases where you can have multiple radios on simultaneously.
That's right. But we are providing a solution for the general case where
there's only one connected radio.
We can add "multi-radio" considerations (as a special case) in the next version
of the draft.
In Figure 2. and the related text:
What is unclear to me is s-GW would keep the IP1 when the MN attaches to t-GW.
What is the background assumption here? Is MN attached to both GWs
simultaneously?
The MN has a single radio connection. But, it can maintain its previous IP
address with the help of a tunnel between the s-GW and the MN or t-GW.
This is what we call "access network anchoring".
I might be a good idea to clarify that a handover from s-GW to t-GW
specifically with a single radio does not cause s-GW to think the MN is
not under its control anymore.. even if the s-GW notices that the MN has
lost the radio connectivity. Same also on the MN side.. even if the
radio connectivity to the s-GW was lost, it does not imply discarding
the IP from the interface..
- Jouni
Alper
- Jouni
7/4/2014 10:10 AM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
Hello DMMers,
We have a new I-D for your reading and discussion.
Title : IP Mobility Orchestrator
Authors : Alper Yegin
Jungshin Park
Kisuk Kweon
Jinsung Lee
Filename : draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator-00.txt
Pages : 13
Date : 2014-07-03
Abstract:
Host stacks can support mobility at multiple layers. Mobility
protocols operating at different layers constitute alternate
solutions with various pros and cons, and they can also have adverse
affects on each other when used simultaneously. Optimal results in
terms of seamless handover and data-path optimization can be achieved
when execution of these protocols are coordinated.
We'll also be submitting an IPR statement to IETF.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator/
Please review this I-D and share your comments.
Thanks,
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
