答复: Re: 答复: Re: comments on dra ft-ietf-dmm-requirements-02

Hi Jouni,

> I mean the below the "applications that any random developer can do" 
support.. i.e. middleware, vendor APIs, OS & IP stack level things etc. 
For example, if the "mobility stack" needs to hook deep inside the IP 
stack, it basically has to be part of the platform level baseline software 
to be successful. If the "mobility stack" is something that just requires 
higher privileges (like installing a driver) than a consumer has, then 
operators & enterprises can distribute required software at will.

[Luowen] I see it could be a middleware or something like that. May be it 
is easy to install this middleware just as to install a driver, and the 
developers don't have to know how the IP mobility is realized, only need 
to know how to invoke it is OK. What is missing here I could image maybe a 
guideline to guide the developer which kind of applicaion needs which kind 
of mobility support (i.e with or without mobility support). But what are 
benifits for a developer to follow this guideline? I mean, it will be much 
easier for a develpoer coding his applcation programme if a stable IP@ can 
be guaranteed.

BR
Luowen





jouni korhonen <[email protected]> 
2012/11/20 16:03

收件人
[email protected]
抄送
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, [email protected], Konstantinos 
Pentikousis <[email protected]>
主题
Re: 答复: Re: [DMM] comments on draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-02







On Nov 20, 2012, at 9:03 AM, [email protected] wrote:


[snip]

> >>  |I would need to implement the "mobility stack" whatever support 
function
> >>  |anyway even if none of my application care about it.
> >> 
> >> If you are absolutely sure that none of your apps needs mobility 
support, and none will ever need it in the future, then there's no reason 
to implement it, sure. But if there's a chance one app may need it and 100 
won't, then perhaps you get to implement it. The difference is that, if 
you do implement that "mobility stack", with conditional support you run 
that code for one app only (and route the respective packets accordingly), 
while with today's approach you do the same for 101 apps.
> 
> > Fair reasoning. However, what is the "mobility stack" here then? Is it 
something we today understand as a MIP enabled stack or could it be 
something more generic? What I mean here is that we should be very 
cautious with MN side impacts not to freak out less mobility cautious 
people. If the "mobility stack" could be beneficial also outside mobility 
use cases that would be awesome.
> 
> [Luowen] Hi Jouni, what do you mean "What I mean here is that we should 
be very cautious with MN side impacts not to freak out less mobility 
cautious people" ?  The applicaions on the mobile node doesn't need to 
understand what is the mobility (i.e. the

I mean the below the "applications that any random developer can do" 
support.. i.e. middleware, vendor APIs, OS & IP stack level things etc. 
For example, if the "mobility stack" needs to hook deep inside the IP 
stack, it basically has to be part of the platform level baseline software 
to be successful. If the "mobility stack" is something that just requires 
higher privileges (like installing a driver) than a consumer has, then 
operators & enterprises can distribute required software at will.

- Jouni

>  application developer doesn't need to understand), and it seems to let 
an ordinary user to understand the mobilty concept is impossible. As per 
my understanding, the application only care to bind to an IP@ which can 
survive longer than itself.

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