Re: [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your comments. Please see inline below.

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:25 AM Templin (US), Fred L <
Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:

> Hi, I read this document and it seems to imply that anchors necessarily
> aggregate
>
> short prefixes. For example, an anchor might aggregate a prefix like
> 2001:db8::/32
>
> and give out ::/64 prefixes to mobile nodes. This preserves the notion of
> a home
>
> network that is identified by an aggregated prefix – so the global routing
> system
>
> can identify the home network by the short prefix.
>

The draft documents multiple "anchoring" options. One implies that the
anchors do anchor some prefixes. One natural deployment option is that they
are aggregated in short prefixes, but other approaches are also possible.
Non aggregatable prefixes could also be used by the anchors.

>
> On the other hand, ‘draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp’ assumes that there is no such
>
> aggregation, and that the anchor has no short prefix associated with it.
> Then,
>
> when a mobile associates with an anchor the anchor injects the mobile’s
> ::/64
>
> prefix into the global routing system.. If the mobile moves to a new
> anchor,
>
> the old anchor withdraws the /64 and the new anchor injects it instead. In
>
> other words, the system is based on complete de-aggregation and there is
>
> no notion of a “home” network – the mobile is always “away from home”.
>

This is an example of solution of what the document classifies under
"Mobility case, anchor relocation".

>
> This is a very different model, and naturally supports continuity of the
> mobile’s
>
> mobile network prefix at all times due to the nature of the routing
> system. It
>
> provides “scalable de-aggregation”, which is something that the routing
>
> research group (RRG) investigated but has not been accomplished until now.
>
>
>
> I think it would be worth considering this model both on its own merits
> and/or
>
> in conjunction with the dmm document. The notion of a “home network” need
>
> not be preserved, and instead we have scalable de-aggregation. Please have
> a
>
> look (as I did for the dmm doc) and post comments or questions.
>

I think this is already considered in the " Mobility case, anchor
relocation" in the draft. We can add additional references as examples of
this, but I'd prefer not to add more text, as we are trying to keep the
document short and what you have described is covered IMHO with the current
text.

Thanks,

Carlos

>
> Thanks - Fred
>
>
>
> *From:* dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:43 AM
> *To:* dmm@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11
>
>
>
> Folks – As we discussed in the WG meeting at IETF103, we are issuing WGLC
> on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11.
>
>
>
> The document went through several revisions and there were good amount of
> reviews on this document.  The authors have addressed all the comments and
> there are no open issues that we are tracking at this time. We believe the
> document is ready for IESG reviews and like to confirm the same from the
> working group.
>
>
>
>
>
> The following message commences a two week WGLC for all feedback.
>
>
>
> Document Link:
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-11.txt
>
>
>
> The target status for this document is “Informational”.
>
>
>
> Please post any comments/concerns on the draft.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dapeng & Sri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>