Re: [DMM] comments on draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01

Liu Dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com> Wed, 07 August 2013 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <maxpassion@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002E821E80B5 for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.766
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TfimHx5WJNfI for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22a.google.com (mail-ve0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB3211E80EA for <dmm@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 15so1245527vea.1 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 20:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=o1HZOwCMlXUfGSgxE8itukrsWZqKU9j+2v8h1VKNOxE=; b=Vq4TDlKPL7qPRj8s9BXzuNcds3e4HSkkBTQ/K2sGV+R051pdqBtuU/xikL8rEx26OI KqnpBkBnmdBDOdLzumly2WbH2BWJG7gf+YTQdHxGvvkBjcO0JqdeTqlPhvsc0PDnBbd/ AJ1H2NECC1scU00sv4qSClRL+M/zr39bL081eNm7IJbosNUXPZy8SH7zyHW9Nvjcx6GV sZD+Wir7ZEakgC9Wdc/gnPerEPVKJYHpJwveucPbK2uxixDJXile2c25VaTkiyD/rLBU CVAzTQzJUgv2ql2SOS4L4zPMVXQ5hJPJwUb3QO//jqpJ5jjSi2dvndugh8l5nGKMlNSn RlnQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.24.201 with SMTP id w9mr363474vef.82.1375846671079; Tue, 06 Aug 2013 20:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.142.130 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51FA13C9.2050806@gmail.com>
References: <72EF3457-5B8A-4F5C-8BEA-2EDC5DBF850E@gmail.com> <51FA13C9.2050806@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:37:51 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKcc6Adb+LFEtQr6aXJCTz3pEjewo_JTu7SeKpGuTdhc=fQ2pA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Liu Dapeng <maxpassion@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b2e75ec185ece04e35344fe"
Cc: dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DMM] comments on draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-01
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 03:37:59 -0000

Hi Alex,


2013/8/1 Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>

> Hello DMMers,
>
> I follow on the Chair invitation to suggest gaps to the gap analysis
> document.  I must though say I have been following this discussion only
> remotely so I am not up to date.
>
> 1. The Route Optimization feature of Mobile IPv6 does not support
>    mobile network prefixes - it only works for a full /128 Home
>    Address.  There is a security problem in extending the RR tests for
>    prefixes.  But if done, it will allow direct communications from an
>    LFN in the moving network to an arbitrary  Correspondent Node in the
>    Internet.
>
> [Dapeng] Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization is analysed in section 4.2.1. Do
you propose any changes of current text?


> 2. Anchoring a Mobile Node's Home Address at multiple points may be a
>    very good goal, but one wonders whether it could be achieved within
>    useful limits.  An IP address is typically valid at a single point
>    in the Internet.  Anchoring it at more places involves the use of
>    route updates or of tunnelling.  It is a question whether this could
>    be achieved within measurable and advantageous limits, compared to
>    changing the IP address, or prefer still anchor at remote HA.
>

[Dapeng] Some current proposal in DMM WG use multiple home addresses for
multiple anchors.

>
> 3. Simultaneous use of multiple interfaces at a same mobile router is
>    something that is not supported by Mobile IPv6 today (although it
>    does support multiple Care-of Addresses).  If done, it allows
>    bandwidth augmentation (i.e. add 10 cellular interfaces to a Mobile
>    Router deployed in a bus, and thus multiply the bandwidth by ten)
>    for all kinds of applications.
>
> [Dapeng] I am not sure whether mobile router case should be in the scope
of DMM?


> These are some thoughts about gaps.  If necessary I can try to provide
> text, provided I understand the current context.
>

[Dapeng] Yes, text will be appreciated.

Dapeng


> Alex
>
> Le 24/07/2013 14:54, Jouni Korhonen a écrit :
>
>  Authors,
>>
>> I finally read the draft and below are some comments to hopefully
>> help completing and improving the draft.
>>
>> In Section 4.2. it is stated:
>>
>> "view using common and standardized protocols.  Since WiFi is the
>> most widely deployed wireless access technology nowadays, we take it
>>  as"
>>
>> Do you have some data/reference to backup your claim?
>>
>> In Section 4.2.1. it is stated:
>>
>> "at different point of attachment.  However there is no mechanism
>> specified to enable an efficient dynamic discovery of available"
>>
>> I would add a clarification here that there is no such mechanism
>> available within IETF specifications. Other SDOs do have such
>> mechanism (e.g. 3GPP).
>>
>> Furthermore, around the bulleted list for the MIPv6 RO discussion, I
>>  would mention that nothing prevents a MN to use its CoA directly
>> when communicating CNs on the same link or anywhere in the internet.
>> Of course there is no mobility in that case but it is a valid
>> scenario to mention IMHO (and also part of our charter). I recon the
>> HMIPv6 text mentions at least the use of RCoA already.
>>
>> In Section 4.2.2. where the text describes RFC6463, I would also
>> reference to RFC6097 since that has quite a bit of text regarding the
>> discovery procedure of the LMA.
>>
>> While I found Section 4.2. good in general I was somehow expecting to
>> see text regarding MOBIKE (RFC4555). We can safely assume MOBIKE is
>> probably the most deployed client mobility enabling technology out
>> there today.
>>
>> In Section 4.3. it says:
>>
>> "GPRS Tunnelling Protocol (GTP) [3GPP.29.060] is a network-based
>> mobility protocol specified for 3GPP networks (S2a, S2b, S5 and S8
>> interfaces)."
>>
>> While 29.060 is about GTP, for the above referenced interfaces
>> 29.281 and 29.274 are probably more appropriate.
>>
>> "A Local IP Access (LIPA) and Selected IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO)
>> enabled network [3GPP.23.829] allows offloading some IP services at"
>>
>> I would say referencing to e.g. 23.401 on LIPA/SIPTO is more
>> appropriate these days, since the TR23.829 is somewhat left behind
>> and the LIPA/SIPTO functionality is part of the main stage-2 specs
>> already.
>>
>> I found Section 4 in general quite nice. However, I was somehow
>> expecting to see a bit of text of WiMAX. Or can we safely state that
>>  no IPv6 deployments ever took place in WiMAX? Anyway, at least a
>> reference to WiMAX would be nice, since they spent quite a bit of
>> time developing both CMIPv6 and PMIPv6 functionality into their
>> architecture.
>>
>> In Section 4.3. I would reference to 3GPP TS29.303 and say something
>> about 3GPP's heavy use of DNS as the "gateway location database" and
>> how that is used to discover gateways with both topological and
>> gateway collocation in mind
>>
>> In Section 5. it is stated:
>>
>> "o  The dynamic anchor relocation needs to ensure that IP address
>> continuity is guaranteed for sessions that need it at the relocated
>> anchor.  This for example implies having the knowledge"
>>
>> Since our charter _allows_ solutions where mobility is used "when
>> needed" that fact should be reflected above. Even if there is
>> mobility supported only locally within a limited area, it might meet
>>  the requirements from the MN or the application point of view i.e.
>> when the MN or the application does not care about a "full
>> longstanding mobility" to be provided.
>>
>> "o  Dynamic discovery and selection of anchors.  There might be more
>> than one available anchor for a mobile node to use.  Currently, there
>> is no efficient mechanism that allows to dynamically discover the
>> presence of nodes that can play the role of anchor, discover their
>> capabilities and allow the selection of the most suitable one."
>>
>> Within 3GPP TS29.303 makes that possible and is deployed.
>>
>> In general the draft is heading to a good direction IMHO! Just
>> complete it fast ;-)
>>
>> - Jouni
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________ dmm mailing list
>> dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/dmm<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/dmm<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>
>



-- 

------
Best Regards,
Dapeng Liu