[Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobility
Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov> Fri, 08 October 2004 18:57 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23349; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:57:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CG068-0006AY-CM; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:08:13 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFzr0-0001g6-1Y; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:52:34 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CFzeK-0007RG-LR for tsvwg@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:39:28 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20069 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:39:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from seraph3.grc.nasa.gov ([128.156.10.12]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CFzoK-0005Y6-HF for tsvwg@ietf.org; Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:49:48 -0400
Received: from lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by seraph3.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BEE6BA01 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:38:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (drpepper.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.122.76]) by lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i98IcvV2005127 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:38:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix, from userid 501) id 403944FD48; Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:37:02 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov>
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20041008183702.GJ27317@grc.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-People-Whose-Mailers-Cant-See-This-Header-Are-Lame: true
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3
Subject: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobility
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: weddy@grc.nasa.gov
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0941088069=="
Sender: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac
At the San Diego meeting last August, Allison closed the meeting by talking very broadly about hosts having multiple addresses, and how this affects the transport layer [1]. One of the potential uses is for handling host mobility at the transport layer. This has been done experimentally several times in several different transport protocols, but not within any specific unified architecture. For example, over the years there have been mobile SCTP, TCP, and DCCP proposals that all have used different code for supporting movement detection (finding out when the local host has moved) and doing location management (providing some way for the mobile node to be reached for new connections). These are two common problems for all transport layer mobility protocols, which happen to be independent of the particular transport protocol used. It makes sense to define a common framework to provide this functionality, so that individual transports don't have to worry about it. As a first step, we've begun exploring a simple architecture to provide these two services using existing standards (eg neighbor discovery, dynamic DNS, etc), and described our architecture in: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eddy-tlmarch-00.txt We would appreciate any feedback from the community on this, and would welcome the opportunity to speak breifly in Washington if the group is interested. We feel that while there is little new here, providing the common framework for transport protocols to easily develop mobility support with little replication of effort, is an important step. Additionally, this draft attempts to provide a detailed comparison of the architectural differences between transport layer mobility and Mobile IP, the predominant mobility protocol which operates at a completely different layer and has different deployment and stack-design considerations. -Wes [1] See meeting notes at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/04aug/261.htm
_______________________________________________ tsvwg mailing list tsvwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
- [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobility Wesley Eddy
- Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Joe Touch
- RE: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Henderson, Thomas R
- Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Seok J. Koh
- Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Seok J. Koh
- Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobi… Salvatore Loreto