Re: [DMM] DMM solution space categorization

[Alper Yegin <[e-mail]>]

Jouni,

>> 
>> I've updated the list with the I-Ds suggested by Behcet/Fred/Jouni.
>> 
>> Please see below for my opinions about how each category relates to the
>> overall work.
>> Comments welcome.
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> *1. Per-flow IP address configuration according to mobility needs*
> 
> "Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes"
> 
>> Apps indicating their mobility needs to the IP stack on the MN, and
>> associated IP configuration signaling between the MN and the network.
>> 
>> draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-03
>> draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties-00.txt
>> draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-02
> 
> Then we have a number of I-Ds from MIF:
> 
> draft-kk-mpvd-ndp-support
> draft-kkb-mpvd-dhcp-support
> draft-kkbg-mpvd-id
> 
> These intend to build the overall method of conveying the signaling between the network and the mn. There are no spacific use cases described for mobility yet but those are then amendments for the above.
> 


MIF problem space is different than DMM's. 
We should not create any dependency between the two.

> draft-liu-dmm-mobility-api
> 

I'll add that.

Alper


> Above has extensions to RFC5014 for applications to check prefix properties.
> 
> 
>> This category is essential, given that we all agree mobility will be
>> treated on a per-flow basis.
>> (and once we dive into the category, I'd say the aforementioned I-Ds are
>> complementary).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *2. Mobility solution selection *
> 
> In my optinion this also fits under "Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes".
> 
>> MN determining the type of mobility solution(s) it'd apply to a given flow.
>> 
>> draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator-00
>> 
>> In recognition of L4+ mobility solutions (such as MPTCP, SIP, apps
>> having their own), this also becomes essential for a DMM solution. Some
>> people may argue, discussion is very welcome.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *3. IP anchor selection*
> 
> "Enhanced mobility anchoring"
> 
>> MN selecting the IP anchor node after it decides to use IP anchoring
>> (whether in the access network or the core network).
>> 
>> draft-aliahmad-dmm-anchor-selection-00.txt
>> 
>> This category is supporting the Category 4, 5 and 6. This is about more
>> intelligent way of picking the IP anchor once the type of anchor is
>> determined.
>> This may produce a standalone I-D, or may be folded into individual
>> solutions in those categories.
>> 
>> 
>> *4. Access network anchoring*
> 
> Still related to "Enhanced mobility anchoring". Many of these I-Ds handle the anchor change issues (like tunneling between the anchors).
> 
>> Anchoring IP address within the access network using IP-in-IP tunneling.
>> 
>> draft-bernardos-dmm-cmip-01
>> draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-03
>> draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-04
>> draft-chan-dmm-enhanced-mobility-anchoring-00
>> draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-00.txt
>> draft-seite-dmm-dma-07.txt
>> draft-xuan-dmm-nemo-dmm-02.txt
>> draft-korhonen-dmm-local-prefix-01
>> 
>> The need for this category is well-understood. The challenge is having
>> plethora of solutions. Though the main concept is common…
>> 
>> 
>> *5. Corresponding node/network anchoring*
> 
> Still under "Enhanced mobility anchoring".
> 
>> Anchoring IP address on the Corresponding Node or Corresponding Network.
>> 
>> Mobile IPv6 route optimization
>> draft-yegin-dmm-cnet-homing-02
>> draft-xiong-dmm-ip-reachability-01
>> draft-templin-aerolink-29
>> 
>> This category of solutions are also needed (for their ability to produce
>> better paths and different applicability with respect to the Category 4)
>> 
>> 
>> *6. Host-route based intra-domain solutions*
> 
> "Forwarding path and signalling management"
> 
>> Non-tunneling solutions.
>> 
>> draft-chan-dmm-enhanced-mobility-anchoring-00
>> draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-02
>> draft-mccann-dmm-flatarch-00
>> draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-00.txt
>> 
>> Solutions in this category are competing with the Category 4 type
>> solutions. There are various pros and cons. IMHO, we cannot resolve that
>> contest, hence we should produce solution for both categories and let
>> the industry pick and choose. Given that these solutions are isolated
>> from the other components (categories), standardizing both should not
>> have adverse impact on the overall DMM complexity.
>> 
>> Alper
> 
> - JOuni
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>