Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt

Hello Alper,

Thanks for the good comments. please see my reply inline:


2013/7/17 Alper Yegin <[email protected]>

> Hello Dapeng,
>
> Here are me few comments:
>
>        It is typically the role of a connection
>        manager to distinguish application capabilities and trigger the
>        mobility support accordingly.
>
> and
>
>       Multiple IP address management: ability of the mobile node to
>       simultaneously use multiple IP addresses and select the best one
>       (from an anchoring point of view) to use on a per-session/
>       application/service basis.  Depending on the mobile node support,
>       this functionality might require more or less support from the
>       network side.  This is typically the role of a connection manager.
>
> I'm not sure if this is really a connection manager issue. This is more of
> a source address selection issue.
>
> [Dapeng] Yes, application and OS protocol stack can also take the role of
choosing source IP address. We will update this statement accordingly.

>
>        Mobility management and traffic redirection should only be
>        triggered due to IP mobility reasons, that is when the MN moves
>        from the point of attachment where the IP flow was originally
>        initiated.
>
> Mobility management and traffic redirection may also be triggered due to
> load balancing. Maybe we should acknowledge such non-mobility related
> triggers, and state that they are outside the scope of this document.
>

[Dapeng] I am not sure whether there is a case that mobility management is
triggered due to load balancing. Could you help to give an example?

>
>

> Should we described the terms IP session continuity and IP address
> reachability? This document is solely focusing on the former, we should
> state that.
>
> [Dapeng] For "IP address reachability", you mean the case that session is
initiated from Internet toward to the MN? I am not sure whether it should
be in the scope of mobility management. For example, RFC5555 does not
discuss this case.

>
> When doing the gap analysis, we better break down the benefits we are
> seeking and evaluate existing solutions with respect to them (e.g.,
> signaling reduction, use of most direct data-path, etc. ). For example,
> regular use of HMIP helps with the former, but not the latter. But, using
> RCoA as source address helps with both (but it has other issues -- when MN
> moves outside the local domain).
>

[Dapeng] We already done that in section 5.2. Do you have more column want
to add in table 1?

Thanks,
Dapeng Liu


Alper
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Liu Dapeng wrote:
>
> Hello folks:
>
> To make good progress in Berlin meeting, it is better for us to start
> discussion and resolve comments in the list now. Please help to review
> and feel free to send comments.
>
> quick summary of the draft:
> -----
> Section 4 'DMM practice' mainly analyses the mobility deployment
> practice in WLAN and 3GPP network. Both client-based and network-based
> mobility protocols are discussed.
>
> Section 5 'Gap analysis' tentatively discusses the gaps. Please have a
> look whether you agree on those gaps and whether you want to propose
> any new ones. Any input from the group will be welcomed.
>
> Thanks,
> Dapeng Liu
>
> 2013/6/17 Zuniga, Juan Carlos <[email protected]>:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> We have posted an updated version of the current practices and gap
> analysis draft. We would like to make one more update before Berlin, so
> your comments and feedback are very welcome.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Juan Carlos et al.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:07 AM
>
> To: Carlos J. Bernardos; H Anthony Chan; Zuniga, Juan Carlos; Anthony
> Chan; Dapeng Liu; Zuniga, Juan Carlos; Pierrick Seite
>
> Subject: New Version Notification
> fordraft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt
>
> has been successfully submitted by Dapeng Liu and posted to the
>
> IETF repository.
>
>
> Filename:        draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis
>
> Revision:        01
>
> Title:           Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and
> gap analysis
>
> Creation date:   2013-06-17
>
> Group:           dmm
>
> Number of pages: 21
>
> URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt
>
> Status:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis
>
> Htmlized:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01
>
> Diff:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01
>
>
> Abstract:
>
>   The present document analyses deplyment practices of existing
>
>   mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment.
>
>   It also identifies some limitations compared to the expected
>
>   functionality of a fully distributed mobility management system.  The
>
>   comparison is made taking into account the identified DMM
>
>   requirements.
>
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> dmm mailing list
>
> [email protected]
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------
> Best Regards,
> Dapeng Liu
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>
>


-- 

------
Best Regards,
Dapeng Liu

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