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

[Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>]

Seok-Joo,

At this point it is not clear that new mechanisms are needed thus the
question on where should solution work be undertaken seems a bit
premature. For now I' d advise people interested in the DMM work to
focus on what are their requirements and then see how the MIPv6
protocol suite can be applied to fulfill those.

--julien

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Seok-Joo Koh <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>