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

["Seok-Joo Koh" <[e-mail]>]

Hello there,

To my understanding, this thread of discussion was intended to review LISP
so as to collect a lot of useful information in the perspective of DMM requirements,
NOT to make specific schemes, such as MIP-based, PMIP-based, or LISP-based DMM solutions.

It seems that the issues on DMM requirements are under the scope of MEXT WG, as described in the WG 
charter.
However, it is still unclear to me which WG is appropriate to develop specific solutions for DMM:
MIP-based DMM -> MEXT WG ?
PMIP-based DMM -> NETEXT WG ?
LISP-based DMM -> LISP WG ?
or
all the issues shall fall into the MOPOPT RG ??

*************************
Seok-Joo Koh
http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/
*************************

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement


>
> Hi Charlie,
>
> On 8/2/11 4:41 PM, "ext Charles E. Perkins"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>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.
>
> If the LISP design helps in alleviating the concerns that we have
> identified as some of the key issues in I-D
> draft-patil-mext-dmm-approaches-01.txt (Sec 3), then maybe yes. If we have
> to incorporate LISP based mobility as a solution for DMM, then we have an
> issue, because at the present time it can be perceived that the problems
> could be solved within the framework of MIP6 signaling and network
> elements.
>
> -Basavaraj
>
>
>>
>>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