Re: draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator-00.txt

Alper,

7/17/2014 12:53 AM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
>>>
>>> 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).

That s-GW and t-GW mapping is not clear. Figure 1 step 1 makes me think 
s-GW is a LMA and step 4a also makes me think t-GW is a LMA. That is the 
source of confusion, since I do not know which nodes these GWs map to 
and what is assumed out of those (on top of existing PMIP). Just spell 
out the assumed functionality etc.


>>>> 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.

Ok.

- Jouni

>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>
>