Re: Preparing for DMM future steps and rechartering

Sri,

Sorry if my mail was too direct.  It is not my intention to suggest
getting rid of anything.

Frankly speaking I don't know what DMM is, and I still have to review
the draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-02

Whenever one says one particular protocol I have a problem with each.
For example, but just an example, I have growing problems articulating
an explanation of the lack of MIP deployment.

Deployment, testing and prototype interest are valuable indicators.

Alex

Le 11/11/2013 17:08, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit :
> 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
>>
>>>
>
>
>