Re: [DMM] review of draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-00

Hi Behcet,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Behcet Sarikaya
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:50 PM
> To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
> Cc: dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] review of draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-
> 00
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
> <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> > Hi Behcet,
> >
> > On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 11:13 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> >> Hi Carlos,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
> >> <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> >> > Hi Behcet,
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 11:06 -0500, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> >> >> Hi Carlos,
> >> >>
> >> >> You say in various places in your draft that your protocol is
> PMIPv6-based.
> >> >> I wonder how it could be?
> >> >
> >> > More accurately, we could say that the solution is network-based.
> PMIPv6
> >> > is just one network-based protocol and the solution is specified
> in the
> >> > draft for PMIPv6. Not sure what your doubt comes from...
> >> >
> >>
> >> If it is network based then I don't understand why MN has a lot to
> do
> >> in your protocol as Wen has pointed out?
> >
> > AS stated in the draft, the solution is completely network-nased. The
> MN
> > is a legacy IPv6 node, has nothing to do in our protocol.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> RFC 5213 in Section 7.1 says:
> >> >> Once the address configuration is complete, the mobile node can
> >> >>    continue to use this address configuration as long as it is
> attached
> >> >>    to the network that is in the scope of that Proxy Mobile IPv6
> domain.
> >> >>
> >> >> I wonder if MN moved out of PMIPv6 domain in your case?
> >> >
> >> > No, it has not. One of the common assumptions for DMM is that the
> MN
> >> > does not need address continuity for the whole duration the MN is
> >> > attached to the domain. The idea is to enforce new communications
> to
> >> > make use of the address anchored closer to where the MN is
> attached to,
> >> > and to deprecate addresses anchored elsewhere (so they are not
> needed
> >> > once active communications using them are done).
> >> >
> >>
> >> I guess what you understand from DMM is to put LMA functionality
> into
> >> MAG and lump the two together into one. That's why MN needs to get
> an
> >> address in the new MAG/LMA. And all other requirements coming out of
> >> this huge change in PMIPv6.
> >>
> >> However, if you look into IETF work, in such cases MN needs to use
> >> MIPv6 as in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-
> interactions-07
> >
> > I think I'm not following your rationale to jump from our draft to
> the
> > MN needing to use MIPv6.
> 
> In your new draft draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-00, you
> already admit that D-GW is a MAG and LMA combined. Actually it is also
> very much like HA in draft-sarikaya-dmm-dmipv6-00.
> 
> Because of the MN in Fig.1 configures PrefA (this one is normal PMIPv6)
> and
> 
>  then again configures PrefB (and keeps using PrefA) which is where
> the trick is.
> 
> PMIPv6 is network-based and this is achieved with having two distinct
> entities of MAG and LMA. Then you don't need much from MN in such an
> architecture with such assumptions.

[JCZ] Agree

> 
> However if you change these basic assumptions and have D-GW and make
> it a single entity mobility protocol then you can not claim it is
> network-based any more because it simply is not.
> 

[JCZ] I think that Carlos refers to the fact that the changes are on the network side and we have not introduced any MN functionality. Hence, this is a network-based approach.

> I think that there are similar concerns on draft-seite-dmm-dma-00 and
> draft-liebsch-mext-dmm-nat-phl (I have not checked this one yet).
> 
> What is interesting is that with D-GW becoming like HA, all these
> protocols become very similar to the distributed MIPv6 protocol.

[JCZ] Again, we are not introducing MN changes in the draft, so I don't think it maps to a client-MIP approach.

Regards,

Juan-Carlos

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm