Re: Preparing for DMM future steps and rechartering

Hi, Brian,

Brian Haberman wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>      Speaking with no hat on...
> On 11/12/13 4:29 PM, Peter McCann wrote:
>> Hi, Sri,
>> 
>> Even if we agree that those services are necessary (and I would point 
>> out once again that most of them are not beneficial to the end-user) 
>> I don't think we should be architecting the network in such a way 
>> that we lose the basic benefits of IP (shortest path routing and 
>> fault-tolerance).  We can implement those services without taking all 
>> the packets to a central location; maybe just the first packet or 
>> meta-information about the first packet can be taken to an SDN 
>> controller that can make some decision and pass it down to the user 
>> plane.
>> 
>> I really don't think this is such fantastic science-fiction. ;)
> 
> The degree to which this is science fiction really depends on what 
> scope you think these host routes will have in the routing system.
> 
> * Are you assuming mobility within a single enterprise or Autonomous 
> System?

Yes, at the most this will be one AS.

> * Limited mobility within a consortium of networks?

No.  At the most this will be one AS, possibly less depending on scalability.

> * Is this global mobility for any/all nodes?

No.  I think global mobility should be handled with client MIP because we
should not assume any relationship between previous/next visited networks.

The Boeing experiment (not science fiction, but also not scalable) tried
global mobility with BGP:

Dul, A., "Global IP Network Mobility using Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)," Available at: http://quark.net/docs/Global_IP_Network_Mobility_using_BGP.pdf

This obviously wouldn't work for billions of MNs.  But, with DMM people
are starting to realize that MNs don't need completely stable global addresses
that live forever.  So I think DMM should focus on localized mobility management.

> Regards,
> Brian

-Pete