Re: demand for DMM traffic steering
Alper Yegin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <E5F91D41-5943-4351-ABD4-E4A27921C98C__15784.9425137558$1405626019$gmane$org@yegin.org> |
Sri, PMIP is a solution. You can apply SDN approach to it by splitting CP and DP. For example, a draft like draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-03 talks about "access network anchoring". And you can apply SDN to it (as you already mentioned jun your examples on this thread), or not. Alper On Jul 17, 2014, at 9:21 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > I do not know your definition of approach vs solution, but one can argue > DMM itself is about a deployment model and an approach. I always insisted > its less of a protocol work and more about a tying many aspects. So, what > we have been discussing is a solution approach which has the essential > properties of CP/DP separation, aspect of optimized/stateless data plane, > application specific gateway allocations .. etc and that at the end is an > approach for realizing DMM. > > > Sri > > > > > > > On 7/17/14 10:59 AM, "Alper Yegin" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Intense readingŠ :-) Lot of abstractions, which I can only follow by >> relating to specific solutions. >> >> In my understanding, what Sri is describing is about "how to apply UP/CP >> separation to various DMM solutions". >> In the examples I see a number of DMM solutions defined with UP/CP >> separation using Sri's terminology (e.g., per-flow mobility, access >> network anchoring, host-specific route based solutions, etc). >> >> So, it's not a solution by itself, but it's an approach that can be >> applied to various solution techniques to SDNize them. >> And that indeed has value. >> >> Alper >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm