Re: tunnels-vs-host routes and other DMM components
Alper Yegin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <EE68E62A-28D7-480E-B7E0-7364A067EC76__22552.0065091134$1385199881$gmane$org@yegin.org> |
Hi Alex, On Nov 22, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Hello Alper, > > In this discussion, I may be missing the 'Mobile Router vs Host' dimension. > > We would use host-based routes if we need Mobile Hosts, but we'd use prefix-based routes if we needed Mobile Routers. > > The route convergence speed and domain size scalability aspects apply differently. > You are right, we should also account for the mobile router. But I think spreading a specific route for a single host address and doing the same for a single prefix are pretty much the same (in terms of scalability/performance metrics). > Additionally, I would shape the question from the other point of view as well: is it reasonable for PMIP solution to use tunnels even if the mobile stays within the same domain? > It depends on the solution specifics. We cannot say "shall not use tunnels in that case". But if some solution achieves not using tunnels (assuming w/o doing some funky business), then it sounds attractive. We can look at the details. Alper > Alex > > Le 22/11/2013 12:12, Alper Yegin a écrit : >> Hello folks, >> >> Using tunnels vs. propagating host routes across a domain… >> >> The former is proven to work. The latter appears to have attractive attributes (e.g., absence of tunneling overhead, fully distributed nature, etc.), but there are also aspects that need to be addressed, such as: >> - Can it scale (passing host-routes for millions of nodes even in single operator network)? >> - Can it converge fast enough for seamless handovers? >> - Is it practical from charging, lawful intercept, DPI, policy enforcement point of view? >> - How do we deal with the case when the MN moves outside the domain? (probably we need to fall back to using a tunnel-based solution) >> >> The host-route-based schemes need to overcome these challenges to appear as an alternative to tunnel-based solutions. I'm hoping the proponents of those scheme will show us how they handle these issues. >> >> Maybe it'll turn out that under certain conditions host-route-based solutions work just fine (Pete was pointing at local mobility). If so, we can recognize that and tell people they can use such solutions instead of tunnel-based solutions, where applicable. >> >> For example: If the anchor is within an operator network it can be used (which can substitute for tunnel-based anchoring on a central HA and also on previous AR -- but not for anchoring near the corresponding network which works across the Internet). >> >> ... >> >> But note that, that discussion is just about one component of DMM solution set. There are other components, which are not impacted by that discussion. Such as: >> - The MN stack treating flows differently with respect to their mobility needs (assigning different types [colors/anchor type, etc] of IP addresses) >> - The MN stack choosing anchors (i.e., selecting a specific anchor node based in the anchor type selection). >> >> … >> >> And whenever a component involves DP/CP, we should recognize that they are separable and take that into account. >> >> >> Alper >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> > >