Re: Questions on draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-02

Behcet, thanks for clarifying more clearly. :)


On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]>wrote:
-- snip --

>
> >
> > Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I'm sure that RR/RS just only know about
> > routes, nor whole mobility information exists. When I see a node which
> plays
> > MME role, the node could also be a BGP speaker to export the mobility
> info
> > transformed to the routes.
> >
>
> So MME should be BGP speaker?
> If not then what would happen?
>
>
Precisely, say MME, which 3GPP defined mobility management entity, doesn't
have the BGP function. IMO, If the entity can be coexist with BGP in a
single node, an interface for exposing/retrieving mobility information
would be required between them.



> > What do you mean by "topologically incorrect"?
> > Is that the assigned prefixes are disordered to be aggregated?
> >
>
> Yes. UE moves to another EPC-E which supports a different prefix than UE
> has?
> You need to keep host-based prefixes as routes, is there another way?
>
>
In the draft, as long as an UE keeps same prefix during hand-over among
EPC-E routers, those routers belong to a same group that is expected to
preserve same prefix for the UE. It should be initial attach when the UE is
attached to different EPC-E and assigned different prefix from previous
one. Please read section 3.3 and 3.4 of the draft.

cheers,
--satoru

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