Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement
"Seok-Joo Koh" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <D1ABC28C882D4F7AA68B6BB2EB09CC13@knucpl> |
Julien, Your comment is completely agreed. I believe the first step of DMM shall be to make a couple of WG documents on problem statements and requirements, together with applicability to the current MIP protocol suite. Our energy needs to be focused on those issues. Thanks, Seok-Joo Koh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julien Laganier" <[email protected]> To: "Seok-Joo Koh" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 1:03 AM Subject: Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement Seok-Joo, At this point it is not clear that new mechanisms are needed thus the question on where should solution work be undertaken seems a bit premature. For now I' d advise people interested in the DMM work to focus on what are their requirements and then see how the MIPv6 protocol suite can be applied to fulfill those. --julien On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Seok-Joo Koh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello there, > > To my understanding, this thread of discussion was intended to review LISP > so as to collect a lot of useful information in the perspective of DMM > requirements, > NOT to make specific schemes, such as MIP-based, PMIP-based, or LISP-based > DMM solutions. > > It seems that the issues on DMM requirements are under the scope of MEXT WG, > as described in the WG charter. > However, it is still unclear to me which WG is appropriate to develop > specific solutions for DMM: > MIP-based DMM -> MEXT WG ? > PMIP-based DMM -> NETEXT WG ? > LISP-based DMM -> LISP WG ? > or > all the issues shall fall into the MOPOPT RG ?? > > ************************* > Seok-Joo Koh > http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/ > ************************* > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:58 AM > Subject: Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement > > >> >> Hi Charlie, >> >> On 8/2/11 4:41 PM, "ext Charles E. Perkins" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello folks, >>> >>> I agree that LISP work should not be done in the [mext] >>> working group. >>> >>> However, if the LISP design shows how to make a good >>> solution for distributed anchoring, it is pertinent to >>> our work insofar as it provides a model for the [mext] >>> solution. In that case, if we are fortunate, it would >>> be easier to devise an appropriate solution by using >>> the LISP distributed anchoring as a guide. >> >> If the LISP design helps in alleviating the concerns that we have >> identified as some of the key issues in I-D >> draft-patil-mext-dmm-approaches-01.txt (Sec 3), then maybe yes. If we have >> to incorporate LISP based mobility as a solution for DMM, then we have an >> issue, because at the present time it can be perceived that the problems >> could be solved within the framework of MIP6 signaling and network >> elements. >> >> -Basavaraj >> >> >>> >>> Please note that I do not yet claim that LISP does >>> what is needed -- only that we ought to take a look. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Charlie P. >>> >>> >>> On 8/2/2011 2:15 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree with Romain's comment. >>>> The scope of DMM within the context of the MEXT WG is to reuse Mobile >>>> IPv6 >>>> protocols, extensions and elements to address the concerns of the base >>>> Mobile IP model. >>>> >>>> Mobility using LISP may be a good solution in itself. I have no idea or >>>> opinion about such a solution at the present time. >>>> >>>> I believe that we can address the DMM requirements with a few extensions >>>> to MIP6 signaling and guidelines for deployment. Expanding the scope of >>>> DMM beyond the base MIP6 protocol would be taking us down a path with no >>>> visible end. >>>> >>>> -Basavaraj >>>> >>>> On 8/2/11 4:09 PM, "ext Romain KUNTZ"<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I fail to see how LISP would fall in the MEXT charter item, which >>>>> concentrates on MIPv6-based DMM solution ('Operational considerations >>>>> for >>>>> distributed use of Mobile IPv6'). If LISP is foreseen as a potential >>>>> solution for distributed mobility management, that should probably be >>>>> discussed in the Network WG, where LISP and LISP MN are discussed. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Romain >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 1, 2011, at 16:50, Seok-Joo Koh 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/ >>>>>> ************************* >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles E. Perkins" >>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: "mext"<[email protected]> >>>>>> Cc:<[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:28 AM >>>>>> Subject: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM >>>>>> requirement >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At IETF 81, LISP for mobile devices was presented. >>>>>>> While I am not yet convinced about the specific >>>>>>> solution presented, I started to look at LISP as >>>>>>> a possible component of an overall DMM solution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LISP has a website: >>>>>>> http://www.lisp4.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For people who are unfamiliar, this issue of IPJ >>>>>>> has a tutorial article about LISP: >>>>>>> http://www.lisp4.net/docs/ipj_11-1.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The LISP draft for mobile nodes is accessible here: >>>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-meyer-lisp-mn/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Comments? I think that LISP should be added to the >>>>>>> comparison matrix in my draft with Dapeng Liu. >>>>>>> Would that be helpful? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Charlie P. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext