Re: Preparing for DMM future steps and rechartering

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.nemo
Message-ID <CEA63ED6.E8642%[email protected]>
Alex - So, the proposal is to get rid of the MIP signaling plane and
piggyback on some routing updates, or over OpenFlow ? So, what is the
result, we use a generic non-MIP interfaces and make them look like MIP
interfaces ? What is the point ? This is DMM ?


Regards
Sri




On 11/11/13 7:51 AM, "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>I think it may converge.
>
>I am not sure whether we have reached a point where we can discuss
>without assuming a particular protocol (i.e. neither MIP, nor BGP), but
>I think we can discuss route update method vs tunnel-based method.
>
>We can also discuss whether new functionality is needed on the mobile
>entity, vs whether the first-hop router does much on its behalf
>('proxy').  Which may bring in a question of whether a Mobile Host or a
>Mobile Router is considered.
>
>Effects of route updates may be too heavy on a network ('route churn')
>or less so; it may depend, among several factors, on the topology and
>the addressing architecture of the fixed network.
>
>Routing protocols are highly distributed concepts, yet many include
>particularly designated entities, which have particular roles (not all
>routers are equal) - these could host what we expect to be more
>controlling points.
>
>Alex
>
>>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.