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 >> >