Hi Pete,
This obviously wouldn't work for billions of MNs. But, with DMM people
are starting to realize that MNs don't need completely stable global addresses
that live forever.
Most don't, but some do. We need to account for them as well.
So I think DMM should focus on localized
Hi Marco,
On 11/15/13 1:56 AM, Marco Liebsch marco.lieb...@neclab.eu wrote:
Depends. I assume that the session you describe is a mobility session
(binding ID-Locator),
not a data session. If the mobility session remains anchored at the
previous attachment point,
there will be a tunnel towards
Hi Pete,
On 11/15/13 12:13 PM, Peter McCann peter.mcc...@huawei.com wrote:
There can be (but does not have to be) a centralized control plane
element that has a global view of all the MNs currently attached
and keeps track of which MAG they are currently on. From the point
of view of DMM,
Hi Sri,
-Original Message-
From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 14. November 2013 06:22
To: Marco Liebsch; Peter McCann
Cc: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Preparing for DMM future steps and rechartering
Hi Marco,
My intention is not to eliminate
Hi Pete,
My definition of CP is between the AG and the MA, what is out there today.
Now, if there is a functional split of CP and DP on any entity, and if
there is a interface between those two in the form of some CP interface,
then I don't have a term for that interface. We can probably agree
Please see inline, Carlos.
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano [mailto:c...@it.uc3m.es]
Sent: Mittwoch, 13. November 2013 12:48
To: Marco Liebsch
Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Peter McCann; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] Preparing for DMM future steps and rechartering
Hi Pete,
Speaking with no hat on...
On 11/12/13 4:29 PM, Peter McCann wrote:
Hi, Sri,
Even if we agree that those services are necessary (and I would point out
once again that most of them are not beneficial to the end-user) I don't
think we should be architecting the network in such a
Hi, Brian,
Brian Haberman wrote:
Hi Pete,
Speaking with no hat on...
On 11/12/13 4:29 PM, Peter McCann wrote:
Hi, Sri,
Even if we agree that those services are necessary (and I would point
out once again that most of them are not beneficial to the end-user)
I don't think we should
Le 13/11/2013 16:39, Peter McCann a écrit :
Hi, Brian,
Brian Haberman wrote:
Hi Pete, Speaking with no hat on... On 11/12/13 4:29 PM, Peter
McCann wrote:
Hi, Sri,
Even if we agree that those services are necessary (and I would
point out once again that most of them are not beneficial to the
Rather than sink into a re-chartering discussion, I would like the WG to
focus on completing the existing work items. It was suggested that an
interim (or 2) get set up to work on these items. Please focus on this
rather than re-chartering.
Regards,
Your friendly AD
On 11/13/13 3:43 PM, Behcet
Hi Brian,
I personally think that Interim(s) would not work for dmm. Only a few
people could go to such meetings. Most of us already have a heavy travel
schedule, squeezing another trip seems not so reasonable.
Regards,
Behcet
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Brian Haberman
I never said they had to be face-to-face meetings. It is completely
acceptable to hold virtual (on-line) meetings.
Regards,
Brian
On 11/13/13 4:01 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi Brian,
I personally think that Interim(s) would not work for dmm. Only a few
people could go to such meetings.
Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Peter McCann; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] Preparing for DMM future steps and rechartering
Hi Marco,
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 11:23 +, Marco Liebsch wrote:
Carlos,
just to clarify my view here: I do not see them as different
approaches, but in a way
Hi Marco,
My intention is not to eliminate a tunnel that exists in any of the
tunnel management
protocols (aka MIP6, PMIP6, ..). My picture of DMM primarily distributes
topological
anchor point for the MN's IP address(es). Forget about the C-plane for
now.
Tunnels apply solely below (well,
Le 11/11/2013 16:29, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit :
Hi Pete,
I'm not sure, I agree with this, or understand this to be precise. I
do not know know CP (in the form of PMIP, GTP or some other protocol
XYZ) can be completely eliminated. There needs to be some interface
between the access
Alex - So, the proposal is to get rid of the MIP signaling plane and
piggyback on some routing updates, or over OpenFlow ? So, what is the
result, we use a generic non-MIP interfaces and make them look like MIP
interfaces ? What is the point ? This is DMM ?
Regards
Sri
On 11/11/13 7:51 AM,
I think we need a draft from Pete on this so we can all understand what is
being proposed.
Regards,
Behcet
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
sgund...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Pete,
I'm not sure, I agree with this, or understand this to be precise. I do
not know know
Hi, Alex,
When it comes to injecting routes into the routing infrastructure,
I think we have to use the proxy model. It doesn't make sense for
the MN to be speaking to the access network's routing protocol. This
means the MAG will need to authenticate the MN and check that the
IP addresses
18 matches
Mail list logo
