[Ideas] Mobility usecase draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement-00.txt
Kiran Makhijani <kiranmak@gmail.com> Tue, 04 October 2016 23:02 UTC
Return-Path: <kiranmak@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2671294C9
for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id U4eiwBoFfueQ for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x229.google.com (mail-io0-x229.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::229])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AA271294F6
for <ideas@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x229.google.com with SMTP id q192so3900968iod.0
for <ideas@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=2QgqAOWBgBg/EZ3f/n91YBnmJtatSnN8K/4KzFSc69Y=;
b=vFN+qilPMM7h4Dw8N1RmyZDHra+b9vd2mb9GCpAMMyL8ToXGLS4gDebwHNlbwusBiA
HFdRVLIQ+rHdQcFnyVmrdP8A2g22au9S3/8m+BpIA831kaTnLddIi7+EJbdnUYKTvMCI
URoYHThoZHe74L9FDeC/5nadh8zSWn5m3wUpZDOd8U5puY83R6zitTXwh5eTHUPzE330
3olFL9aOzcblK6w3elnSP0uiMcT6rlkZOZjNtVMhqrerho0ZkVAA0+z9pc7aeq2jLOmw
RkMies61tgRDsxTlSZKgb92T5De40f5GFAOWXs2zbVVV2Guik+jl9dfGrjpTV3qzQaUs
yhpQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=2QgqAOWBgBg/EZ3f/n91YBnmJtatSnN8K/4KzFSc69Y=;
b=dgQM/GtHez5Q2xckAFJ029CIr/G+FMKn3gdy4f8e66LOcp/9RuReTBVuOUiasutQ6m
bONI+Mos+X7P15hJTuGRa1tF0/yjLi3u7Mh4G2Fxy87ZuTXmgPhgRCRj3y9KVAIMqXAU
InEjg2+BPWq9pQt7+erb2/LTGkH8xEl0SkL4hcJAx/wxqS8QYmbymbzaEl56FAqG6Egg
ddeDF4mWqNsaRWFYv81/YUhi2kE2KKrmcgq6hdBHzpLhqCRmtyEK/Jr8BfeZCqd2GSn9
vt1NayiJQZEdfeq21HgC9lJwjueNg84IBDkTZ4zJg2HZeMCaQxKIOFwMInmAZMBZzooa
xrcQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rk0+8uwKveghv2ZiaT3I/QhGnY6Clwb20xrQZIHYE6EFpSrpRqWbNaLNeU0IRw/jR+hHRSj+vNxmMZI7g==
X-Received: by 10.107.39.76 with SMTP id n73mr7817743ion.180.1475622160346;
Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Kiran Makhijani <kiranmak@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 23:02:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEZ-O0m7__b5v-zydAcjzgLQWXU_xYnLyiOT+7KPh=Q4HHBZdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ideas@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11404962b0b45a053e120e30
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/8FktfeFJmaMGY0FkHtbsGoXhJ_Y>
Subject: [Ideas] Mobility usecase draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ideas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification,
and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and
functionalities in ID enabled networks." <ideas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ideas>,
<mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ideas/>
List-Post: <mailto:ideas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>,
<mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 23:02:42 -0000
Hello authors,
+1 on the problem statement. I think a uniform approach to mapping system
framework is very much needed.
But if it is ID specific there are many more functionalities related to
Identity in the networks than just the mapping systems. Is the scope only
limited to mapping function aspects?
I also have some questions in the mobility section.
- In 7.1.1, "we assume that ID functionality is handled within the network
and is transparent to the UEs or hosts."
What kind of ID functionality is being assumed here?
- Figure in 7.1.1 assumes that MGW is only required for mobile networks.
Are you saying that Host1 and Host2 are not ID enabled and IDs are only
mappable in mobile networks. So, if UE does not need mobility, it need not
go through MGW?
- Can I assume that functional block "Mapping System" is missing from
figure? OR is it not same as the MGW?
1. The new carrier provides the full locator (mapping to
Base_station2) and the MGW sends directly to that locator
- Not sure what you said in this part and the lines that followed in 7.1.2.
Could you explain what is full locator (vs just locator) and only
significant in inter-provider case? a UE can move from one base station to
other in single provider network too. Why wont you need 'full locator'
there?
Thanks
Kiran
--
Kiran
- [Ideas] Mobility usecase draft-padma-ideas-proble… Kiran Makhijani
- Re: [Ideas] Mobility usecase draft-padma-ideas-pr… Tom Herbert
- Re: [Ideas] Mobility usecase draft-padma-ideas-pr… Dino Farinacci