Re: Preparing for DMM future steps and rechartering

Le 13/11/2013 16:39, Peter McCann a écrit :
> 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.

I agree.

In search of a qualifying metric the number of ASes is very good.

If need to go in further detail (sci-fi?) one may also consider metrics
such as the level of aggregation of prefixes in the addressing
architecture, and the IP distance between two Access Routers (not the
geographical distance).

I assume with fully hierarchical addressing, and small IP distance
between ARs may lead to acceptance of route updates on that scale.

(in the Connexion by Boeing test case the IP distance between ARs is
known to be very low although spanning wide geographical areas - no
route churn).

Alex

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