Hi Fred,
On 9/12/14 8:17 AM, "Templin, Fred L" <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote: >> >>Based on these points #3 and #9, can we conclude that we cannot apply >>AERO >>for DMM ? If not, how do we apply and deploy Aero for DMM networks ? > >I don't think so. Surely we can do proxy AERO, and surely iOS >phones can do VPN. So, pick one or both of these alternatives >and I think the concern is addressed? If the latest releases of iOS has support for tunnel interface and route management, I'll be happy to know the specifics. For a minute, lets go with that assumption we can realize Aero client on iOS. That immediately makes the solution relevant (assuming it supports other basic capabilities) to a class of solutions that are client-based and not network-based. As I said earlier, the MIP community has failed to realize client eco-system and any proposals that are client-based have limited value. Lets talk about RO for an IP flow between a host and an application server in some SP's data center. The probability that the peer supports RO capabilities defined by a protocol are close to zero. MIPv6 has RO in the form of IPv6 Type-2 routing header, defined as part of baseline IPv6 specs, but still the MIP community almost gave up on client-based solutions. This is one data point. I understand, Aero can be extended to support a Proxy function. But, will it not look exactly like Proxy Mobile IP ? I'm looking for fundamental properties which are unique to Aero and that PMIP/MIPv6 lacks ? Instead of the approach, "Aero may be extended to do it", what is that one capability that Aero offers and that the current mobility protocols lack ? One line of thinking could be to integrate such unique ideas, if any, to protocols that are feature rich and were defined before, standardized, integrated in SDO architectures and has a deployment base. Aero uses DHCP/ND as a signaling interface, instead of dedicated signaling interface, and uses tunnels to setup the overlay routing path. For RO, it uses ICMP, where as MIP uses special messages HoTi/CoTi (please ask Charlie why they chose those terms :)). Furthermore, it misses all the features that the other protocols already can support. Regards Sri _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
