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

[Jouni <[e-mail]>]

Just to point out that GTP-U also carries control information, which none of the existing *MIP user plane tunnels do not do today.

Regarding GTP-C part, 3GPP TS29.275 has done pretty thorough job already mapping GTPv2-C to PMIP signaling, so using GTP-U instead of GRE or IPIP should be rather straightforward if someone were to do it.

- Jouni

On Sep 6, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Alper Yegin wrote:

> 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. 
> 
> 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