Re: DMM Interim call #2 - agenda forming

Hi Fred,

Looking at other solution alternative, there is this proposal from
Satoru-san. 

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-03.txt

Will be good to know your views on how you see this approach compare with
Aero. 


Regards
Sri



On 9/10/14 4:25 PM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Fred,
>
>I'm not suggesting Aero vs MIP debate. IMO, its simply not worth it. Each
>of the protocols have certain properties, which helps in some use-cases
>and may be inefficient for some other use-cases. But, you can make all of
>them work, MIP, GTP, MOBIKE, AERO ... There is no silver bullet in any one
>of them, unless some one can prove it. Some architectures are based on
>fixed anchors and some such as LISP-based are based on floating anchors.
>Solutions based on fixed anchors have properties that suits a SP
>deployment;  a single point of charging, policy enforcement, LI support,
>subscriber control but looses the aspect of optimized routing path. As an
>example, "I've the best optimized path for my traffic, but my operator has
>no clue where my traffic gets routed out". That works very well for some
>cases and does not work for some other deployments. These are all points
>of debate and each have to be measures on its own merit.
> 
>The choice of the protocol is also tied to the legacy and deployed
>infrastructure. Many times its about an evolution. I do not know how many
>people in this WG have been involved in the AERO protocol development, or
>familiar with it, at least I'm not involved in its development. But, I'm
>not against AERO or some thing else. If the discussion has to be about a
>protocol selection and the approach of multiple options does not work,
>then we should just only do that and call for a vote and settle that
>matter. I'm suggesting an approach, where we avoid this protocol debate
>and allow multiple options. I'm sure, that battle will be bitter and not
>worth it.
>
>
>Regards
>Sri
>
>
>
>