Re: draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator-00.txt
Alper Yegin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>> >> Just like for any of our base IETF protocols, we cannot assume multiple radios exist on a given node. >> So, this solution works even for single-radio nodes. > > Ok.. I get confused by Figure 1 saying the sub-IP mobility is PMIPv6. AFAIR what is in figure is somewhat stretching what PMIPv6 does now. That is also what I meant about assumptions that are not said. > Stretching in what sense? s-GW is acting as LMA, and t-GW is acting as MAG in that case (which we can elaborate in the next rev). >>> Section 4.1. says: >>> >>> data-path optimization. On the other hand, above-IP solutions >>> provide data-path optimization but fail to provide seamless >>> handovers. The ideal solution would be based on coordianted >>> >>> I do not agree this fully. "Above-IP solution" allow seamless handovers in cases where you can have multiple radios on simultaneously. >>> >> >> That's right. But we are providing a solution for the general case where there's only one connected radio. >> We can add "multi-radio" considerations (as a special case) in the next version of the draft. >> >>> In Figure 2. and the related text: >>> >>> What is unclear to me is s-GW would keep the IP1 when the MN attaches to t-GW. What is the background assumption here? Is MN attached to both GWs simultaneously? >>> >> >> >> The MN has a single radio connection. But, it can maintain its previous IP address with the help of a tunnel between the s-GW and the MN or t-GW. >> This is what we call "access network anchoring". > > I might be a good idea to clarify that a handover from s-GW to t-GW specifically with a single radio does not cause s-GW to think the MN is not under its control anymore.. even if the s-GW notices that the MN has lost the radio connectivity. Same also on the MN side.. even if the radio connectivity to the s-GW was lost, it does not imply discarding the IP from the interface.. > Yes, we can elaborate on that. Thanks. Alper > - Jouni > > >> >> Alper >> >> >> >> >>> - Jouni >>> >>> >>> 7/4/2014 10:10 AM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti: >>>> Hello DMMers, >>>> >>>> We have a new I-D for your reading and discussion. >>>> >>>> Title : IP Mobility Orchestrator >>>> Authors : Alper Yegin >>>> Jungshin Park >>>> Kisuk Kweon >>>> Jinsung Lee >>>> Filename : draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator-00.txt >>>> Pages : 13 >>>> Date : 2014-07-03 >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> Host stacks can support mobility at multiple layers. Mobility >>>> protocols operating at different layers constitute alternate >>>> solutions with various pros and cons, and they can also have adverse >>>> affects on each other when used simultaneously. Optimal results in >>>> terms of seamless handover and data-path optimization can be achieved >>>> when execution of these protocols are coordinated. >>>> >>>> We'll also be submitting an IPR statement to IETF. >>>> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator/ >>>> >>>> Please review this I-D and share your comments. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Alper >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>> >>