Re: DMM Interim call #2 - agenda forming

Hi Fred,


On 9/12/14 8:17 AM, "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>Based on these points #3 and #9, can we conclude that we cannot apply
>>AERO
>>for DMM ? If not, how do we apply and deploy Aero for DMM networks ?
>
>I don't think so. Surely we can do proxy AERO, and surely iOS
>phones can do VPN. So, pick one or both of these alternatives
>and I think the concern is addressed?


If the latest releases of iOS has support for tunnel interface and route
management, I'll be happy to know the specifics. For a minute, lets go
with that assumption we can realize Aero client on iOS. That immediately
makes the solution relevant (assuming it supports other basic
capabilities) to a class of solutions that are client-based and not
network-based. As I said earlier, the MIP community has failed to realize
client eco-system and any proposals that are client-based have limited
value. Lets talk about RO for an IP flow between a host and an application
server in some SP's data center. The probability that the peer supports RO
capabilities defined by a protocol are close to zero. MIPv6 has RO in the
form of IPv6 Type-2 routing header, defined as part of baseline IPv6
specs, but still the MIP community almost gave up on client-based
solutions. This is one data point.

I understand, Aero can be extended to support a Proxy function. But, will
it not look exactly like Proxy Mobile IP ? I'm looking for fundamental
properties which are unique to Aero and that PMIP/MIPv6 lacks ?

Instead of the approach, "Aero may be extended to do it", what is that one
capability that Aero offers and that the current mobility protocols lack ?
One line of thinking could be to integrate such unique ideas, if any, to
protocols that are feature rich and were defined before, standardized,
integrated in SDO architectures and has a deployment base.

Aero uses DHCP/ND as a signaling interface, instead of dedicated signaling
interface, and uses tunnels to setup the overlay routing path. For RO, it
uses ICMP, where as MIP uses special messages HoTi/CoTi (please ask
Charlie why they chose those terms :)). Furthermore, it misses all the
features that the other protocols already can support.



Regards
Sri