Re: WGLC #2 starts for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03

Hello Anthony,

I think the new text is worthwhile, but "increase" should
be "increases".

Regards,
Charlie P.


On 5/17/2013 2:07 PM, h chan wrote:
> The original comment was on "resources" in the following problem statement:
>
>     PS3:  Low scalability of centralized tunnel management and mobility
>           context maintenance
>
>           Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
>           mobility context for each MN therein requires more resources in
>           a centralized design, thus reducing scalability.  Distributing
>           the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility context
>           maintenance function among different network entities can
>           increase scalability.
>
> How about revising PS3 to the following and comparing resources:
>
>     PS3:  Low scalability of centralized tunnel management and mobility
>           context maintenance
>
>           Setting up tunnels through a central anchor and maintaining
>           mobility context for each MN in a centralized design increase
>           the processing at the anchor as the number of MNs increases.
>           Distributing the tunnel maintenance function and the mobility
>           context maintenance function among different network entities
>           with proper signaling protocol design can increase scalability.
>
> H Anthony Chan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of KIM, BYOUNG-JO J (BYOUNG-JO)
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:24 AM
> To: Peter McCann
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC #2 starts for draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-03
>
> Very much agreed.
>
> Also, distributed solutions can be concentrated as deployment needs dictate using layer 2 means, as is done often in many present networks.
>
> can't do the opposite with centralized solutions without a whole lot of acrobatics.
>
> "J" Kim
> AT&T Labs - Research
> http://sites.google.com/site/macsbug/
>
> On May 17, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Peter McCann wrote:
>
>> We shouldn't require all the traffic to pay the price of
>> centralization just because some small subset of the flow need it.  LI
>> should be a very small proportion of the traffic, and those flows can
>> be directed to a collection point as needed.  If you really need
>> per-flow, per-application charging, you can send meta-information
>> about the flows to a charging collection box.  No need to send the flows themselves.
>>
>> -Pete
>>
>>
>> Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
>>>> Distributed solution: Take IP traffic directly from access router to
>>>> the Internet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Counter argument.
>>>
>>>
>>> It implies, LI, Charging, DPI Šetc on each of the distributed nodes.
>>> Implies more "CAPEX and OPEX" ?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not against distributed models and 6909 is the proof point. But,
>>> IMO, it will hard to draw relation to cost models, based on traffic
>>> exit points. You may need mobility hierarchy in the network for "n"
>>> number of reasons and a centralized models for "m" number of reasons.
>>> It more about deployment choice, dependent on many parameters.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/29/13 5:29 AM, "Alper Yegin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Charlie,
>>>>
>>>> No, it should be less.
>>>>
>>>> Distributed solution: Take IP traffic directly from access router to
>>>> the Internet.
>>>> Centralized solution: Take IP traffic from access router to a core
>>>> router to the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> The latter suggests more CAPEX and OPEX.
>>>>
>>>> Alper
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 27, 2013, at 3:44 AM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Alper,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with your point, but it means that the total cost of the
>>>>> distributed solution is even more expensive.... right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Charlie P.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/26/2013 12:56 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Charlie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - It is claimed that a centralized architecture requires more
>>>>>>> resources than a distributed architecture.  This is usually
>>>>>>> false.  For instance, if a centralized node requires 100 units,
>>>>>>> and 100 distributed nodes each require 1.03 units, the
>>>>>>> distributed architecture requires 3 more units overall.
>>>>>> This would be true for tasks that can be performed either on the
>>>>>> distributed node or on the central node.
>>>>>> But the essential task for DMM systems, IP forwarding, is not of
>>>>>> that nature.
>>>>>> In centralized architecture, that task needs to be performed
>>>>>> *both* at the edge node and also at the central node (and in fact
>>>>>> even in
>>>>>> between) before the packets hit the Internet/mobile device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even so, the additional expense of the distributed architecture
>>>>>>> would often be a bargain for reasons of redundancy, resiliency,
>>> etc.
>>>>>> Alper
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Charlie P.
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dmm mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>


-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.