Re: [Tsvwg] architecture for transport layer mobility

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

This work is being explored in the Multi6 WG; it might be useful to 
check with their current state.

In particular, one of their early conclusions was that there were 
multiple layers at which this problem _could_ be fixed (transport, net, 
shim under net, etc.), but that some were more appropriate than others 
(I think they concluded that transport solutions to mobility weren't as 
useful in the general sense since they need to be recapitulated for each 
transport design).

Joe

Wesley Eddy wrote:

> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg