Hi Alper, Charlie, > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alper Yegin > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 3:06 AM > To: Charlie Perkins > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [DMM] MIP and GTP (was Re: regarding the re-chartering..) > > Hi Charlie, > > GTP has its data-plane (GTP-U) and control-plane (GTP-C). > I think you are talking about using Mobile IP signaling in-place of GTP-C to > enable GTP-U. > If so, I think it'd technically work. But, for adoption by 3GPP standards and > deployments, we'd need > to make a case for using Mobile IP instead of GTP-C.
At the risk of saying "me too", AERO would work fine with GTP as well, using AERO control plane signaling. AERO works over any tunnel type that supports IP-in-*-in-IP encapsulation. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Alper > > > On Sep 5, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Charlie Perkins wrote: > > > > > Hello folks, > > > > I have made various presentations at IETF, some from many years > > ago, proposing that Mobile IP enable use of GTP as a tunneling > > option. I still think that would be a good idea. Should I re-re-revive > > a draft stating this in more detail? > > > > Regards, > > Charlie P. > > > > > > On 9/5/2014 1:48 AM, Alper Yegin wrote: > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
