Hi Alex, On Sep 5, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Le 05/09/2014 10:48, Alper Yegin a écrit : >> Alex, >> >> DMM is not meant to be only about a bunch of MIP-based solutions. >> There are various components in DMM solution space that'd also work with >> GTP-based architectures. >> For example, identifying the mobility needs of flows. >> Or, conveying the mobility characteristic of a prefix to the UE. > > Alper - thanks for the reply. > > Identifying the mobility needs of flows assumes that IP flows _can_ be > characterized, and then distinguished as mobile - or non-mobile. I think > this is very hard to do, given the difficulty to write good firewall rules, > and the difficulty of analyzing traffic dumps. > > For example, Netalyzr was written to tell whether or not one's computer is > connected to the Internet. That report page has so many lines that it is > hard to tell which part of it really means 'connected to the Internet'. > > The same problem may arise when trying to identify a particular 'flow'. > The most robust way is to let the application tell the IP stack. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-02.txt Alper > Alex > > > >> >> Alper >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> >>> Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit : >>>> Behcet, >>>> >>>> On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You don't seem to understand my points. >>>> >>>> That is quite possible. Your comment on the list was "I am against any >>>> deployment work before we decide on a solution..." >>>> >>>> I read that as an objection to having the deployment models work item on >>>> the agenda. Please do tell me what I am missing. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Brian >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am following the discussion and me too I do not quite understand what is >>> the complain. >>> >>> I am happy to learn that a if a WG is to be formed then it would be around >>> a solution rather than just requirements or architecture. >>> >>> That said, I would like to express a worry along similar lines. >>> >>> In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a hard-rooted >>> disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP - and the >>> deployments. We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments (2G/3G/4G) do not >>> use (P)Mobile IP. We also know that 3GPP specs do mention Mobile IP. To >>> such a point that I wonder whether 3GPP has not the same disconnect as here. >>> >>> On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is used - the >>> trials, the projects, the kernel code, and not least the slideware >>> attracting real customers. >>> >>> The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect. >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
