Alper,
7/17/2014 12:53 AM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
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.
Stretching in what sense?
s-GW is acting as LMA, and t-GW is acting as MAG in that case (which we can
elaborate in the next rev).
That s-GW and t-GW mapping is not clear. Figure 1 step 1 makes me think
s-GW is a LMA and step 4a also makes me think t-GW is a LMA. That is the
source of confusion, since I do not know which nodes these GWs map to
and what is assumed out of those (on top of existing PMIP). Just spell
out the assumed functionality etc.
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..
Yes, we can elaborate on that.
Ok.
- Jouni
Thanks.
Alper
- 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
