Re: Req#1

Anthony,

The harmful type of "centralized" anchor is the one that is in single/fixed location typically far from the MN, which naturally causes sub-optimal route for most, if not all, end2end data-paths.
That's what we are trying to avoid with the DMM solutions.
Though, it'd take considerable effort to elaborate on that in the I-D at this 11th hour.
So, instead, let's go with your text. It's sufficient.

Alper




On Nov 6, 2013, at 4:01 AM, h chan wrote:

> Alper
>  
> I check the draft again. The draft does talk about distributed mobility management versus centralized mobility management. Dropping “centralized anchors” entirely in the requirement is going to produce a domino effect in other places.
>  
> Now I think an alternative is to say that only those centralized anchors that are not in non-optimal route are an issue.
>  
>    REQ1:  Distributed processing
>  
>           IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
>           DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management
>           so that traffic can avoid traversing centrally deployed
>           mobility anchors when such anchors are in non-optimal routes.
>  
> That means you have no problem of using centralized anchors as long as they are not in non-optimal routes. That should also accommodate your proposed solution. Are you okay with this compromised wording.
>  
> H Anthony Chan
>  
> From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:32 PM
> To: h chan
> Cc: dmm
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Req#1
>  
> Works for me.
>  
> Alper
>  
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 12:21 AM, h chan wrote:
> 
> 
> Is the following also acceptable:
>    REQ1:  Distributed processing
>  
>           IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
>           DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management
>           so that traffic can avoid traversing 
>           mobility anchors that are in non-optimal routes.
>  
> I am trying to write it in simple wording and not getting into a new term such as “off path”
> H Anthony Chan
>  
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alper Yegin
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:25 AM
> To: dmm
> Subject: [DMM] Req#1
>  
> Hello folks,
>  
>    REQ1:  Distributed processing
>  
>           IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
>           DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management
>           so that traffic does not need to traverse centrally deployed
>           mobility anchors and thereby avoid non-optimal routes.
>  
> The real issue is not the "central location of the anchor", but "off-path location of the anchor".
>  
> The triangular route is caused by forcing the packets to traverse an anchor node that is not on the direct IP path between the MN and the CN.
>  
> See the CNet-Homing proposal. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-yegin-dmm-cnet-homing-01.txt. We place the anchor in corresponding network, or the ISP serving that network. Therefore, the path going via that anchor does not cause triangulation. Some people may perceive that as locating the anchor in a central location (though this time it's not an "absolute/unchanging" center as implied in the current text).
>  
> Therefore I recommend the following revision:
>  
>    REQ1:  Distributed processing
>  
>           IP mobility, network access and routing solutions provided by
>           DMM MUST enable distributed processing for mobility management
>           so that traffic is not forced to traverse off-path
>           mobility anchors and thereby avoid non-optimal routes.
>  
> Alper
>  
>  
>

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