Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement

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" <[email protected]> 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/
> *************************
>