Re: [DMM] MIP and GTP (was Re: regarding the re-chartering..)

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alper, Charlie,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alper Yegin
> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 3:06 AM
> To: Charlie Perkins
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: [DMM] MIP and GTP (was Re: regarding the re-chartering..)
> 
> Hi Charlie,
> 
> GTP has its data-plane (GTP-U) and control-plane (GTP-C).
> I think you are talking about using Mobile IP signaling in-place of GTP-C to enable GTP-U.
> If so, I think it'd technically work. But, for adoption by 3GPP standards and deployments, we'd need
> to make a case for using Mobile IP instead of GTP-C.

At the risk of saying "me too", AERO would work fine with GTP as
well, using AERO control plane signaling. AERO works over any
tunnel type that supports IP-in-*-in-IP encapsulation.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]
 
> Alper
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Charlie Perkins wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > I have made various presentations at IETF, some from many years
> > ago, proposing that Mobile IP enable use of GTP as a tunneling
> > option.  I still think that would be a good idea.  Should I re-re-revive
> > a draft stating this in more detail?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Charlie P.
> >
> >
> > On 9/5/2014 1:48 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
> >> Alex,
> >>
> >> DMM is not meant to be only about a bunch of MIP-based solutions.
> >> There are various components in DMM solution space that'd also work with GTP-based architectures.
> >> For example, identifying the mobility needs of flows.
> >> Or, conveying the mobility characteristic of a prefix to the UE.
> >>
> >> Alper
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> >>
> >>> Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit :
> >>>> Behcet,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> >>>>> You don't seem to understand my points.
> >>>> That is quite possible.  Your comment on the list was "I am against any
> >>>> deployment work before we decide on a solution..."
> >>>>
> >>>> I read that as an objection to having the deployment models work item on
> >>>> the agenda.  Please do tell me what I am missing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Brian
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I am following the discussion and me too I do not quite understand what is the complain.
> >>>
> >>> I am happy to learn that a if a WG is to be formed then it would be around a solution rather than
> just requirements or architecture.
> >>>
> >>> That said, I would like to express a worry along similar lines.
> >>>
> >>> In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a hard-rooted disconnect between the
> product developped - (P)Mobile IP - and the deployments.  We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments
> (2G/3G/4G) do not use (P)Mobile IP.  We also know that 3GPP specs do mention Mobile IP. To such a
> point that I wonder whether 3GPP has not the same disconnect as here.
> >>>
> >>> On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is used - the trials, the projects,
> the kernel code, and not least the slideware attracting real customers.
> >>>
> >>> The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect.
> >>>
> >>> Alex
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> dmm mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> dmm mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dmm mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm