Re: Issue: Simultaneous movements (#2)

(b) sounds like a reasonable choice.

Lakshminath

Jari Arkko wrote:

>
> This is about the level of support for simultaneous
> movements by the communicating parties.
>
> There seems to be a number of different cases here:
>
> (a) Two mobile nodes getting a new address at the
>     same time, and then being unable to tell each
>     other where they are. This problem is called the
>     rendevouz problem, and is traditionally solved
>     using home agents (Mobile IPv6) or forwarding
>     agents (Host Identity Protocol). Essentially,
>     solving this problem requires the existence of
>     a stable infrastructure node somewhere.
>
>     Example: roaming laptop to another roaming laptop,
>     no SGW involved.
>
> (b) Simultanous changes to addresses such that at
>     least one of the new addresses was known by
>     both peers before the change occurred. The
>     primary problem in case (a) was not knowing
>     the new addresses beforehand.
>
>     Example 1: two SGWs failover to another path.
>     Example 2: roaming laptop gets a new address
>     at the same time as its SGW's primary interface
>     goes down.
>
> (c) No simultaneous changes at all.
>
> [Our charter prohibits the creation of a fully
> fledged mobility protocol, so it seems that we
> should avoid introducing new network nodes to
> solve the rendevouz problem. Therefore, case (b)
> seems like a good candidate for us. This would
> still allow two SGWs to failover from one common
> interface to another. And of course, if someone
> wants to set up their IPsec tunnels so that everything
> always goes through one stable anchorpoint in the
> network, they can do so.]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
>