I've updated the list with the I-Ds suggested by Behcet/Fred/Jouni.
Please see below for my opinions about how each category relates to the overall work. Comments welcome. 1. Per-flow IP address configuration according to mobility needs Apps indicating their mobility needs to the IP stack on the MN, and associated IP configuration signaling between the MN and the network. draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-03 draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties-00.txt draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-02 This category is essential, given that we all agree mobility will be treated on a per-flow basis. (and once we dive into the category, I'd say the aforementioned I-Ds are complementary). 2. Mobility solution selection MN determining the type of mobility solution(s) it'd apply to a given flow. draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator-00 In recognition of L4+ mobility solutions (such as MPTCP, SIP, apps having their own), this also becomes essential for a DMM solution. Some people may argue, discussion is very welcome. 3. IP anchor selection MN selecting the IP anchor node after it decides to use IP anchoring (whether in the access network or the core network). draft-aliahmad-dmm-anchor-selection-00.txt This category is supporting the Category 4, 5 and 6. This is about more intelligent way of picking the IP anchor once the type of anchor is determined. This may produce a standalone I-D, or may be folded into individual solutions in those categories. 4. Access network anchoring Anchoring IP address within the access network using IP-in-IP tunneling. draft-bernardos-dmm-cmip-01 draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-03 draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-04 draft-chan-dmm-enhanced-mobility-anchoring-00 draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-00.txt draft-seite-dmm-dma-07.txt draft-xuan-dmm-nemo-dmm-02.txt draft-korhonen-dmm-local-prefix-01 The need for this category is well-understood. The challenge is having plethora of solutions. Though the main concept is common… 5. Corresponding node/network anchoring Anchoring IP address on the Corresponding Node or Corresponding Network. Mobile IPv6 route optimization draft-yegin-dmm-cnet-homing-02 draft-xiong-dmm-ip-reachability-01 draft-templin-aerolink-29 This category of solutions are also needed (for their ability to produce better paths and different applicability with respect to the Category 4) 6. Host-route based intra-domain solutions Non-tunneling solutions. draft-chan-dmm-enhanced-mobility-anchoring-00 draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-02 draft-mccann-dmm-flatarch-00 draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-00.txt Solutions in this category are competing with the Category 4 type solutions. There are various pros and cons. IMHO, we cannot resolve that contest, hence we should produce solution for both categories and let the industry pick and choose. Given that these solutions are isolated from the other components (categories), standardizing both should not have adverse impact on the overall DMM complexity. Alper
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
