Alper,

What we broadly agreed in Nov/Mar IETF's (based on offline discussion) to go 
with a design group approach. Approach of Individual I-D's, comparing them, 
selecting the best will go no where, IMO. There are like dozen proposal on the 
table.

With that goal in mind we have had several conf calls (with smaller group of 
folks) in Jan time frame.  What we discussed there and in f2f meetings was 
summarized in IETF 89 WG slides.  Off course, that does not give it a WG 
status, but the goal is to come to some agreement on the approach and then 
document the approach. Fair comment on lack of details and that its at a 
high-level. The discussion is purposely kept at a high-level and we need to 
work out the details. We should have more formal design meetings and if we 
converge, we should then write a I-D(s).

Sri







From: Alper Yegin <alper.ye...@yegin.org<mailto:alper.ye...@yegin.org>>
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2014 1:06 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com<mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
Cc: Marco Liebsch <marco.lieb...@neclab.eu<mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, 
"dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [DMM] demand for DMM traffic steering

Sri,

You SDNize a solution, then co-locate two entities, and voila the mobility 
protocol vanishes, and all that's left is OpenFlow.
That's why there's no mobility protocol in that picture.

It'd really be good if we see your solution documented, it's not easy to fully 
grasp it in a Q&A style.

(I'm saying this to save us energy. If we read your I-D, we can all see how it 
meets the requirements. Otherwise, we are going to have to ask about them and 
have lengthy discussions to understand things).

Alper




On Jul 17, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:

Alper,

There is no  mobility protocol here in this below deployment modek.  Mobility 
protocol based on GTP/PMIP comes into the second case when we introduce the 
access and the home network based separation. In a flat model, its just a SDN 
interface between the CP and DP functions. But, the way we perform gateway 
selection, allocate application specific gateways, migrate a data plane 
session, allow UE the gateway indicators ..it meets every single  DMM 
requirement that we have discussed in this group and with the side-affect of 
realizing CP/DP separation.



<CA18E534-121E-4582-90A4-14AA394AEDEE.png>


Sri


From: Alper Yegin <alper.ye...@yegin.org<mailto:alper.ye...@yegin.org>>
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:39 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com<mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
Cc: Marco Liebsch <marco.lieb...@neclab.eu<mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, 
"dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [DMM] demand for DMM traffic steering

Sri,

PMIP is a solution.
You can apply SDN approach to it by splitting CP and DP.

For example, a draft like draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-03 talks about "access 
network anchoring".
And you can apply SDN to it (as you already mentioned jun your examples on this 
thread), or not.


Alper





On Jul 17, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:

I do not know your definition of approach vs solution, but one can argue
DMM itself is about a deployment model and an approach. I always insisted
its less of a protocol work and more about a tying many aspects. So, what
we have been discussing is a solution approach which has the essential
properties of CP/DP separation, aspect of optimized/stateless data plane,
application specific gateway allocations .. etc and that at the end is an
approach for realizing DMM.


Sri






On 7/17/14 10:59 AM, "Alper Yegin" 
<alper.ye...@yegin.org<mailto:alper.ye...@yegin.org>> wrote:

Intense readingÅ  :-) Lot of abstractions, which I can only follow by
relating to specific solutions.

In my understanding, what Sri is describing is about "how to apply UP/CP
separation to various DMM solutions".
In the examples I see a number of DMM solutions defined with UP/CP
separation using Sri's terminology (e.g., per-flow mobility, access
network anchoring, host-specific route based solutions, etc).

So, it's not a solution by itself, but it's an approach that can be
applied to various solution techniques to SDNize them.
And that indeed has value.

Alper




















_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Reply via email to