MIP and GTP (was Re: regarding the re-chartering..)

Alper Yegin <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.nemo
Message-ID <25086374-11E8-45F6-B20F-428897C50DA7__44739.5196919844$1409998017$gmane$org@yegin.org>
Hi Charlie,

GTP has its data-plane (GTP-U) and control-plane (GTP-C).
I think you are talking about using Mobile IP signaling in-place of GTP-C to enable GTP-U.
If so, I think it'd technically work. But, for adoption by 3GPP standards and deployments, we'd need to make a case for using Mobile IP instead of GTP-C. 

Alper


On Sep 5, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Charlie Perkins wrote:

> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I have made various presentations at IETF, some from many years
> ago, proposing that Mobile IP enable use of GTP as a tunneling
> option.  I still think that would be a good idea.  Should I re-re-revive
> a draft stating this in more detail?
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
> On 9/5/2014 1:48 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
>> Alex,
>> 
>> DMM is not meant to be only about a bunch of MIP-based solutions.
>> There are various components in DMM solution space that'd also work with GTP-based architectures.
>> For example, identifying the mobility needs of flows.
>> Or, conveying the mobility characteristic of a prefix to the UE.
>> 
>> Alper
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> 
>>> Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit :
>>>> Behcet,
>>>> 
>>>> On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>>>> You don't seem to understand my points.
>>>> That is quite possible.  Your comment on the list was "I am against any
>>>> deployment work before we decide on a solution..."
>>>> 
>>>> I read that as an objection to having the deployment models work item on
>>>> the agenda.  Please do tell me what I am missing.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Brian
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I am following the discussion and me too I do not quite understand what is the complain.
>>> 
>>> I am happy to learn that a if a WG is to be formed then it would be around a solution rather than just requirements or architecture.
>>> 
>>> That said, I would like to express a worry along similar lines.
>>> 
>>> In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a hard-rooted disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP - and the deployments.  We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments (2G/3G/4G) do not use (P)Mobile IP.  We also know that 3GPP specs do mention Mobile IP. To such a point that I wonder whether 3GPP has not the same disconnect as here.
>>> 
>>> On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is used - the trials, the projects, the kernel code, and not least the slideware attracting real customers.
>>> 
>>> The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect.
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dmm mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>> 
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.