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

Hi Guys,

 

Sorry to jump in.

Will it be safe saying that ". only within the context of IP mobility, that
is when the MN moves from the point of attachment where the IP flow was
originally initiated" ?

It sounds like we are going to handle only the first movement of MN for each
flow.

I'd like to double-check if it is our agreement.

 

Regards,

Jungshin

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alper
Yegin
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 4:02 PM
To: Liu Dapeng
Cc: dmm
Subject: Re: [DMM] New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt

 

Dapeng,

 

 

       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?

 

Alper> I was referring to forcing the MN to change its HA when the currently
used HA is overloaded. 

 

 

[Dapeng] OK, That is the HA redirection case.  How about changing the word
"should only" to "normally"?

 

 

I'd recommend something like this:

 

       This document considers use of mobility management and traffic
redirection 

       only within the context of IP mobility, that is when the MN moves

       from the point of attachment where the IP flow was originally

       initiated.

 





 

 

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? 

 

Alper> Yes.





I am not sure whether it should be in the scope of mobility management. For
example, RFC5555 does not discuss this case.

 

Alper> It's part of "mobility management". Mobile IP and its variants
support that. 

The case where it is not supported is when the home address keeps changing
(e.g., dynamically anchoring and re-anchoring) -- in which case the MN does
not have stable IP address to stay "reachable". 

 

[Dapeng] The DMM charter says: 

 

 "Although the maintenance of stable home address(es) and/or prefix(es) 

and upper level sessions is a desirable goal when mobile hosts/routers 
change their point of attachment to the Internet, it is not a strict 
requirement" 

 

So IP address reachability may not in the scope.

 

Even though IP address reachability is within the scope of "mobility
management" concept in general, DMM WG charter does not mandate it be
handled in its solutions. Yes.

 

 

 





 

 

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?

 

Alper> Dapeng, I don't see section 5.2 or table 1 in
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01.txt

 

 

[Dapeng] It is in the 00 version
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-00#se
ction-5.1.2). In this update version, the table is not included yet. We can
include it if folks believe it is useful. But we need have consensus on the
conclusion of the table.  

 

Thanks for your valuable comments.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Alper

 

 





Dapeng Liu

 

Alper

 





 

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-analys
is-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 

 





 

-- 

------
Best Regards,
Dapeng Liu

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