Anthony,
Good initiation for discussion.
As for the Distributed MM, it seems that some people are still confused with "Distributed MM" and
"Local MM".
What is the difference between them ?
In the current sentence, it seems that the objective of DMM is "for route
optimization"..
Does it include "minimization of the traffic overhead in the control and data
plane ?
I think it is helpful to clarify the following issues..
- Terms (or definitions) of Distributed, Localized, Dynamic..
- Route optimization, minimization of traffic overhead, resource utilization,...
Regards,
*************************
Seok-Joo Koh
http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/
*************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "h chan" <h.anthony.c...@huawei.com>
To: "mext" <mext@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:42 AM
Subject: [MEXT] Requirements of DMM
There were discussions on the requirements of DMM in July.
I think the email from Sri on the thread "LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement"
(which is also attached below) has also elaborated the DMM requirements.
Let me try to rephrase in the following:
1. Distributed mobility requirement: The mobility management
functions in interconnecting networks may be distributed over a
number of smaller networks, and the mobility support for a
session in a mobile node may be moved from one network to another
network to avoid unnecessarily long route as the node moves.
2. Dynamic mobility requirement: A network supporting a mix of
mobile nodes some of which may be stationary for extended time
while others may be actively mobile may optimize its resources to
avoid unnecessary mobility support.
Comments please.
H Anthony Chan
-----Original Message-----
From: mext-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri
Gundavelli
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 10:23 PM
To: Seok-Joo Koh; Charles E. Perkins; mext
Cc: d...@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement
With respect to the solutions, there are multiple approaches that are on the
table. To me, to achieve a flat distributed model, we need:
- the ability to select a mobility anchor closer to the access network where
the mobile node is attached. 3GPP Rel-10 has done quite a few enhancements
on the aspects of gateway selection. Using the parameters eNB, APN, RNC-ID,
BSC-ID, ...etc
- the ability to re-anchor a session, or create a new session on a new
anchor closer to the new attachment point
- the ability to allow the mobile node to identify the assigned IP address
properties, distinguish between an address assigned in the previous access
network, from an address assigned in the current access network, so it can
continue to use the new address for new sessions and phase out the older
address/mobility session on the previous anchor over a period of time. In
other words, enhancing the SAS rules with mobility awareness will give the
needed session re-anchoring capabilities
This approach gives me the gateway selection closer to the access network
where the mobile node is attached and the needed optimized routing path. So,
I'm trying to understand what are the expectation from the DMM efforts,
beyond this.
Sri
On 8/1/11 8:13 PM, "Sri Gundavelli" <sgund...@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Charlie,
I agree, we have to look at other approaches and bring any value added
features to MIPv6/PMIPv6 protocols that its missing today. But, I've to say,
I'm still trying to understand the DMM problem statement and what DMM should
translate to:
- Is it about optimized routing path ? This is very subjective and the
requirement may vary based on the use-case. Very much depends on the placement
of the anchor point. No solution on the table can ever solve this, unless we
assume the target site where the CN is located, or the ISP above is providing
some new location functions. This new location function, sure, can be a proxy
home agent at the global internet level too, for the argument sake, providing
direct path to the access network where the MN is currently attached. We also
have talked some time back on the Global HAHA, as an approach of session
re-anchoring.
- Is it about moving from a centralized one box model to more distributed
zillion box model ? This sounds very promising on the paper. But, as we
discussed during the DMM BOF, rolling out a zillion pizza box type box anchors
sounds very cool. Sure, but we bring back ten-fold complexity in the form of
building distributed charging, Legal Intercept, DPI, Inline services,
hotlining, high-availability ...etc etc, which are now part of that one
central anchor box. It is to be noted, we have not seen a true distributed
service deployed in the internet today, other than DNS. But, I agree, if this
about building a true internet, who the heck cares about all of these
functions, in the true spirit.
Either way, I assumed any of the new solution will be bound by the following
parameters:
- The signaling protocol will continue to be based on MIPv6/PMIPv6 signaling
semantics.
- We will not introduce a new client, what is now MIP client struggling to
make it to every variants of operating systems.
- Any client-based solution will be an extension on top of DSMIP. Any
network-based solution will be an extension to PMIPv6
I hope we can discuss the solution approaches in the next meeting and bring
new extension to MIPv6/PMIPv6 protocols.
Regards
Sri
On 8/1/11 4:50 PM, "Seok-Joo Koh" <sj...@knu.ac.kr> wrote:
Dear Charles,
I think the LISP can also be considered as a promising candidate
in the design of DMM solutions. Several works are being progressed
to use or extend the LISP for mobility support, which inlcude LISP-MN draft
and many research papers. Actually, I am also considering how to extend
the LISP scheme in the DMM perspective.
LISP is a network-based ID-LOC separation scheme and thus it may give some
advantages for effective mobility support. On the other hand, it is noted
that
the current version of LISP and LISP-MN may need to be more enhanced
in terms of scalability in the mobile environment. For example, one concern
of
LISP
is that the LISP EIDs may not be aggregated anymore in the mobile networks,
since
each mobile node will have its own distinctive EIDs that do not conform the
concerned mobile domain.
This may decrease the scaling benefits of original LISP.
We may need to design a new enhanced EID structure to be used for mobile
environment.
Nontheless, it is worthwhile to consider LISP as a promisng candidate in the
disign of DMM, I think.
By the way, as I already said in this IETF DMM ad hoc meeting, the urgent
action item of DMM is
to make one or more introductory I-Ds with WG consensus, which may include
the problem statements and requirements for DMM, use cases/scenarios, and
comparison matrix, etc.
Regards,
*************************
Seok-Joo Koh
http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/
*************************
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
