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 > >>