Re: [Ideas] Mobility usecase draft-padma-ideas-problem-statement-00.txt
Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Sat, 29 October 2016 02:08 UTC
Return-Path: <farinacci@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 C058B129457
for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, 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 v7Y2j7w2whoZ for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236])
(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 E81BB12956D
for <ideas@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id n85so46114406pfi.1
for <ideas@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=jDZ+VJQif2QQVqmATwnfshNDcmYv5nsZJ7t3BGFVuXo=;
b=uuWuktvXmwyLvdV2yywcdZy4Ap2EEnOJLeRU/S6JSkZXxqsaYLcESxAge6zPRA46v6
7xCTMPf4vgFWtZAD1gXb01hWXuE4St4hCp/TYOuXuC3g3pGk/PQ9fCTHC5WH+A3Llpog
N4fRWSHVOOyQUbMPHzZBfzL2ilausW7wTiE+erE0lAiRALvujfihfFEcE0/kNRNjewA6
ynJAju/t1FUynqHAyT4Wj0ddIe/U8myDW5nPB2y/dDpa6f4I7Ilr5XA+v0NrF7IO4tpk
NTPNgIAXsMja4EBFaNPWc2C2LsqWYYD4huBs3WnDMb9oYzb2WuA7IDCUY5VxTWK8QNgJ
/oLQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=jDZ+VJQif2QQVqmATwnfshNDcmYv5nsZJ7t3BGFVuXo=;
b=WCuVAbhqg8/Xwk20FMiPoikHZcbbMcZEHYJcG/RUnMw33J3L0Gc25cE3M/wlFxBLZp
lstX9NzHhZT0j2XJMRBFIJ5UDnSUK910zlCTxwwla+78qyAauEvqG0FmouasLgLZpdGw
Mgoo5uYNr/dNI+MCfiS+WeGofiQYA/b4oBZvio+nj6HgmtEknqOzTna959ujYxL053WX
Tqi1/Em73IVnIOzUqLhTfOJ9j2QwiLSshtaLqfA/8izjuw5cFtwoyKCT4j2rPAKrtTTa
9q+eG5fjIJY5fRLF7eVuuBE363Q8c4opJdBJKXIZF6bZb1MTqeVicVigRm2qwxFJSRmA
6oPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcZS6BeJV5h56/l+XygghksLvbMqpa46B+60jwsVfCe4ZsMwmezHDcTm1W0+kddUA==
X-Received: by 10.99.221.85 with SMTP id g21mr24627873pgj.121.1477706901544;
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2603:3024:151c:55f0:2d14:7dfb:c4db:bbdb?
([2603:3024:151c:55f0:2d14:7dfb:c4db:bbdb])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e90sm21644660pfd.5.2016.10.28.19.08.20
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14B72c)
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37MoFjXuxqaLRmDsY62zwdLLPz=OxUmnCi1aQ60aN9ikw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:08:20 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FA7C9EE7-FD6B-4306-AC13-D7C38DC32E0C@gmail.com>
References: <CAEZ-O0m7__b5v-zydAcjzgLQWXU_xYnLyiOT+7KPh=Q4HHBZdg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALx6S37MoFjXuxqaLRmDsY62zwdLLPz=OxUmnCi1aQ60aN9ikw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/MhvYZNqTON9Ko5noUZBrJLRaQPg>
Cc: Kiran Makhijani <kiranmak@gmail.com>, ideas@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 02:08:24 -0000
> The advantage of #1 is that providers don't need to share as much > information. For instance, if UE.B is moving around in the new > providers network, UE.A's network doesn't need to know about that. The > downside is that it results in more hops and triangular rouitng. Tom, LISP supports both models but #1 is more popular due to NATs are in the data path. Dino
- [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