Comments and questions to "Architecture Discussion on SRv6 Mobile User plane" draft

Hello

Regarding https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kohno-dmm-srv6mob-arch/ please find my comments and feedback.
Clearly deep discussion is needed to better understand the justifications.

For section 2

The claimed limitations should be spelled out for:

Non-optimal for any-to-any communication
Non-optimal for edge/distributed computing
Non-optimal for fixed and mobile convergence (FMC)

As you know 5G is supporting all of the abovementioned. What is the real issue that is alluded? Can these be qualified?

Regarding "No control of the underlay path" is by intention left out as a matter of implementation and deployment as the underlay can be of any technology and topology.

Statement:
   The IP routing paradigm naturally eliminates these tunnel session
   based shortcomings.  Segment Routing enables fast protection, policy,
   slicing, etc. to provide reliability and SLA differentiation.

Because the shortcomings have not be opened up this statement of use of routing is without any concretism. Yes, segment routing enables the mentioned capabilities, but how do they match to the mentioned limitations is not clear. What is meant by routing should defined better. Do you define routing as SRv6 encapsulation only or something more?  Furthermore, if routing protocols are used for mobility my question is the feasibility of seamless HO and how is the subnetting and address allocation arranged?


Best regards
Hannu

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm