Re: Coordination of mobility solutions

Hi Fred,

>> As promised, let me enumerate the "protocol" worked involved for solutions aimed at "discovery,
>> selection, and coordinated execution of mobility protocols at multiple layers".
>> 
>> - Discovering network's mobility capabilities:
>> 
>> Whether it supports PMIP, LISP,  etc.
>> Possible approach is to define new DHCP options to deliver this "network info" to the terminal.
> 
> Another approach is DNS. For example, nodes can discover whether the
> network supports AERO by resolving the FQDN "linkupnetworks.domainname".
> 

Yes, that's possible too.

>> - Discovering corresponding node's mobility capabilities:
>> 
>> Whether it supports MPTCP, MIP route optimization, etc.
>> Possible approach is to use DNS-based discovery.
> 
> With AERO, it might be easier to just test the assumption that
> the correspondent participates in the service and then make
> other arrangements if it does not.
> 

Trial-and-error, when fails, would create additional latency getting in the way of starting the e2e communications.

>> Discovering the MN's own mobility capabilities does not involve any protocol work. It may be based on
>> platform-specific methods, API, application profiling, etc.
> 
> OK.
> 
>> How the terminal selects the mobility protocol(s) to apply to a given flow, and how it coordinates
>> execution of them are materials for an "informational" document that'd also refer to the
>> aforementioned discovery elements.
>> 
>> Like Danny was suggesting, we can tackle this in the working team that deals with the source address
>> selection, as there's an interaction  between the two. Whether a flow needs a fixed or sustained or
>> nomadic IP address is influenced by whether the application traffic would need IP-layer mobility or
>> not.
> 
> It seems like some flows would need to go through the home network
> using a stable home network address while others should go through
> the visited network using an address specific to the access network.
> And somehow, the mobile needs to keep the home and visited domains
> separate.
> 

Yes.


> Don't some systems already do that? Or, am I missing the point?
> 

The closest I can think of is:  3GPP systems using, say IMS APN and Internet APN, where the Internet APN uses SIPTO at the local network.
Do you have this, or something else in mind?

Alper




> Thanks - Fred
> [email protected]
> 
>> Alper
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm