Alex, >> >> 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 > > Sounds reasonable. > > A complimentary means is to look at this as a source address selection > problem: given two addresses configured on an interface (an IP address, and > an IP address designated as CoA), the application selects the src address as > the IP address if its flows are brief query/response (http), or it selects > the src address as the CoA if its flows are longer timed (request of UDP > stream, or TCP download). >
That's exactly the intention and the approach. > This would need a means to designate to the stack an IP address as to be a > 'CoA', or otherwise designate a prefix to be the 'home' prefix and, by > deduction any address differing be the CoA. > At a high-level, yes. If you've read the draft you'll see there are some details and extensions on top of that (such as it's not a simply matter of CoA vs HoA, but there are in fact 3 types of IP addresses, and also a required type IP address can be configured on-demand when needed). Alper > Alex > >> >> 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
