Hi Fred, Looking at other solution alternative, there is this proposal from Satoru-san.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-03.txt Will be good to know your views on how you see this approach compare with Aero. Regards Sri On 9/10/14 4:25 PM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email protected]> wrote: >Fred, > >I'm not suggesting Aero vs MIP debate. IMO, its simply not worth it. Each >of the protocols have certain properties, which helps in some use-cases >and may be inefficient for some other use-cases. But, you can make all of >them work, MIP, GTP, MOBIKE, AERO ... There is no silver bullet in any one >of them, unless some one can prove it. Some architectures are based on >fixed anchors and some such as LISP-based are based on floating anchors. >Solutions based on fixed anchors have properties that suits a SP >deployment; a single point of charging, policy enforcement, LI support, >subscriber control but looses the aspect of optimized routing path. As an >example, "I've the best optimized path for my traffic, but my operator has >no clue where my traffic gets routed out". That works very well for some >cases and does not work for some other deployments. These are all points >of debate and each have to be measures on its own merit. > >The choice of the protocol is also tied to the legacy and deployed >infrastructure. Many times its about an evolution. I do not know how many >people in this WG have been involved in the AERO protocol development, or >familiar with it, at least I'm not involved in its development. But, I'm >not against AERO or some thing else. If the discussion has to be about a >protocol selection and the approach of multiple options does not work, >then we should just only do that and call for a vote and settle that >matter. I'm suggesting an approach, where we avoid this protocol debate >and allow multiple options. I'm sure, that battle will be bitter and not >worth it. > > >Regards >Sri > > > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
