Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

IRON also provides an alternate approach to mobility
management. I'll have to look at what is meant by
distributed anchoring, but IRON essentially allows
MNs to access a topologically-close HA and move
to a new nearby HA if they move far away from the
former one. The MN<->HA relationship is managed
similar to how a MOBIKE client corresponds with
a MOBIKE security gateway.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail] 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 2:42 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the 
> DMM requirement
> 
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I agree that LISP work should not be done in the [mext]
> working group.
> 
> However, if the LISP design shows how to make a good
> solution for distributed anchoring, it is pertinent to
> our work insofar as it provides a model for the [mext]
> solution.  In that case, if we are fortunate, it would
> be easier to devise an appropriate solution by using
> the LISP distributed anchoring as a guide.
> 
> Please note that I do not yet claim that LISP does
> what is needed -- only that we ought to take a look.
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
> On 8/2/2011 2:15 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Romain's comment.
> > The scope of DMM within the context of the MEXT WG is to 
> reuse Mobile IPv6
> > protocols, extensions and elements to address the concerns 
> of the base
> > Mobile IP model.
> >
> > Mobility using LISP may be a good solution in itself. I 
> have no idea or
> > opinion about such a solution at the present time.
> >
> > I believe that we can address the DMM requirements with a 
> few extensions
> > to MIP6 signaling and guidelines for deployment. Expanding 
> the scope of
> > DMM beyond the base MIP6 protocol would be taking us down a 
> path with no
> > visible end.
> >
> > -Basavaraj
> >
> > On 8/2/11 4:09 PM, "ext Romain 
> KUNTZ"<[e-mail]>  wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I fail to see how LISP would fall in the MEXT charter item, which
> >> concentrates on MIPv6-based DMM solution ('Operational 
> considerations for
> >> distributed use of Mobile IPv6'). If LISP is foreseen as a 
> potential
> >> solution for distributed mobility management, that should 
> probably be
> >> discussed in the Network WG, where LISP and LISP MN are discussed.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Romain
> >>
> >> On Aug 1, 2011, at 16:50, Seok-Joo Koh wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear Charles,
> >>>
> >>> I think the LISP can also be considered as a promising candidate
> >>> in the design of DMM solutions. Several works are being progressed
> >>> to use or extend the LISP for mobility support, which 
> inlcude LISP-MN
> >>> draft
> >>> and many research papers. Actually, I am also considering 
> how to extend
> >>> the LISP scheme in the DMM perspective.
> >>>
> >>> LISP is a network-based ID-LOC separation scheme and thus 
> it may give
> >>> some
> >>> advantages for effective mobility support. On the other 
> hand, it is
> >>> noted that
> >>> the current version of LISP and LISP-MN may need to be 
> more enhanced
> >>> in terms of scalability in the mobile environment. For 
> example, one
> >>> concern of LISP
> >>> is that the LISP EIDs may not be aggregated anymore in the mobile
> >>> networks, since
> >>> each mobile node will have its own distinctive EIDs that 
> do not conform
> >>> the concerned mobile domain.
> >>> This may decrease the scaling benefits of original LISP.
> >>> We may need to design a new enhanced EID structure to be used for
> >>> mobile environment.
> >>> Nontheless, it is worthwhile to consider LISP as a 
> promisng candidate
> >>> in the disign of DMM, I think.
> >>>
> >>> By the way, as I already said in this IETF DMM ad hoc meeting, the
> >>> urgent action item of DMM is
> >>> to make one or more introductory I-Ds with WG consensus, which may
> >>> include
> >>> the problem statements and requirements for DMM, use 
> cases/scenarios,
> >>> and comparison matrix, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> *************************
> >>> Seok-Joo Koh
> >>> http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/
> >>> *************************
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles E. Perkins"
> >>> <[e-mail]>
> >>> To: "mext"<[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc:<[e-mail]>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:28 AM
> >>> Subject: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the 
> DMM requirement
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> At IETF 81, LISP for mobile devices was presented.
> >>>> While I am not yet convinced about the specific
> >>>> solution presented, I started to look at LISP as
> >>>> a possible component of an overall DMM solution.
> >>>>
> >>>> LISP has a website:
> >>>> http://www.lisp4.net
> >>>>
> >>>> For people who are unfamiliar, this issue of IPJ
> >>>> has a tutorial article about LISP:
> >>>> http://www.lisp4.net/docs/ipj_11-1.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> The LISP draft for mobile nodes is accessible here:
> >>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-meyer-lisp-mn/
> >>>>
> >>>> Comments?  I think that LISP should be added to the
> >>>> comparison matrix in my draft with Dapeng Liu.
> >>>> Would that be helpful?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Charlie P.
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> MEXT mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> MEXT mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MEXT mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MEXT mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>