Alper,
6/12/2014 10:55 AM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
Jouni,
I think I can understand and follow now, after your explanation.
I cannot say the same when reading the charter text.
Right. Then we just need to tweak the text, since if you have issues to
parse it the IESG will have double that.
I'll let others speak up. If I'm the only one having difficulty parsing that
part of the charter, then so be it.
Btw, I'm not aware of any decision that the baseline protocol will be PMIP.
CMIP is equally on the table.
Sure. For the anchoring stuff that was kind of assumed to be PMIP though.
- Jouni
Alper
On Jun 12, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Jouni wrote:
Alper,
The latter bullet (forwarding path etc) is imho clearly in your 3. choice below. It can
also be 2. since it is not yet stated what is the baseline protocol. The protocol
solution will then determine that. The former bullet (enhanced anchoring etc) is imho
clearly your 2. more than 1. It could be also partly in 3. if non-PMIP stuff is needed
for the overall solution. Anyway, the baseline protocol is known - PMIP, and the solution
aims to "distribution" within PMIP's boundaries.
What is unclear here?
Jouni
--
Jouni Korhonen
Broadcom
(Sent from my mobile..)
Alper Yegin <alper.ye...@yegin.org> kirjoitti 12.6.2014 kello 9.09:
Jouni,
Based on earlier discussions, and what you wrote below, there are 3 distinct
things:
1. *MIP maintenance.
Any bug fix or improvement not driven by DMM, but for the sake of maintaining
the *MIP baseline protocols, are handled here.
2. MIP-based DMM solutions.
3. Non-MIP-based DMM solutions.
I presume these 3 items map to the those two bullets in the charter. Right?
I cannot clearly tell the mapping though.
Alper
On Jun 12, 2014, at 12:14 AM, Jouni wrote:
Alper,
On Jun 11, 2014, at 10:54 PM, Alper Yegin wrote:
Hi Jouni,
o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a gateway and
mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility anchor switching
that go beyond what has been, for example, described in RFC 6097, 6463,
and 5142. The solution should also define a mechanism for preserving
ongoing mobility sessions in a single administrative or IGP routing
domain, which would involve directing traffic towards the new anchor.
o Forwarding path and signalling management: the mobility agent that handles
the mobility signalling interacts with the network elements in the DMM
network
for managing the forwarding state associated with a mobile node's IP
traffic.
These two functions may or may not be collocated. Furthermore, the
forwarding
state may also be distributed into multiple network elements instead of a
single anchor like network element. Define required protocol extensions to
allow described forwarding path and signalling management.
These above two seem inseparable.
I recommend we list them as one item.
Hrmph.. not sure I agree.
(The separation was between "anchor selection" and "data-path management signaling" before. At that time, it
was a clearer separation. But even at that time I was suggesting combining the two items. In this latest text, the separation got
blurred. The title of the first item, along with references to "switching", "preserving sessions",
"directing traffic" all point to the context of the second one…)
I see your point/concern. Since I (personally) see the enhanced mobility
anchoring more towards maintenance work, I am tempted to have these two
different milestones from the beginning. We could remove the last sentence of
the anchoring milestone..
So, what's called "enhanced mobility anchoring" refers to 'maintenance work',
and
It could, since we specifically point three PMIP RFCs on a related topic: daa
daa on anchor selection, solution for redirect during session establishment and
solution for anchor switch that does not address what happens to ongoing
sessions. When you do better than those, you are approaching a solution that
allows one to better distribute anchors. Still very PMIPish, though.
"Forwarding path and signaling management" refers to 'new DMM solution'?
Yes.. we specifically do not refer how and based on what to achieve that.
I didn't get that from the text…
So is the "Forwarding path and signaling management" intent unclear in DMM
scope?
In my understanding, what we have been calling "maintenance" is simply
PMIP/CMIP improvements/fixes in broad context -- not related to a DMM solution.
On the other hand, that first bullet above does read like a DMM solution to me.
I'm confused… what is maintenance, what is the objective of first bullet, what
is the objective of second bullet…
First bullet intent should be clear, continue PMIP where it left on this anchor
part. Second bullet gives you much more freedom. That is how I divided it in my
organic compute unit.
- Jouni
Alper
- Jouni
We can note that separate anchor discovery & selection drafts may be produced
(opening the door for split documents, while not forcing people to split any
solution into two parts because the charter said so..)
Alper
On Jun 11, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
A heavily updated charter text in the github. I am not sure it addresses all
wording concerns folks had. But.. flame on ;)
Reading the telco notes I realize I do not have nor have seen the slides shown during the
call, so probably the "re-anchoring" sanitization in the charter text went too
far compared what was discussed in the call. Please check.
If you have concerns on the milestones and specifically their timeline, express
your opinion with a new month+year combination.
The cooperation with other WGs is heavily reworded. Basically it says now that DMM can mock other
protocols but those then need review & ratification from the protocol "owning" WG,
just like commonly done with DHCP & RADIUS.
Routing based solutions are now explicitly stated to be restricted to IGP
routing domain and must not propagate routing updates outside the IGP routing
domain.
Regarding the "enhanced mobility anchoring" milestone that could also be put
under maintenance:
Work items related to the PMIPv6 maintenance include:
o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a
gateway and mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility
anchor switching that go beyond what has been, for example,
described in RFC 6097, 6463, and 5142. The solution should also
define a mechanism for preserving ongoing mobility sessions in a
single administrative or IGP routing domain, which would involve
directing traffic towards the new anchor.
Opinions?
- Jouni
6/6/2014 5:37 PM, Alper Yegin kirjoitti:
Hello Jouni, DMM folks,
We better clarify what "anchor re-selection" stands for.
If it is about selecting different anchors for different IP flows, that's one
thing.
If it is about changing the IP anchor in the middle of an IP flow, that's
another thing. And that other thing needs to be scoped out. A basic
understanding of a use case would be appreciated (just an explanation for
discussion, I'm not asking for another I-D!), and identification of various
aspects of that scenario which translate to work items for DMM WG.
I won't be in the call today. So, consider this for a discussion. Follow up on
the mailing list afterwards would be good.
Cheers,
Alper
On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
Folks,
Minor changes..
https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt
IMHO..the charter as it is today, would allow pretty much any solution from
legacy anchoring to herd of pigeons carrying IP.. ;-)
I have put in editorial changes of my own and clear text proposals received
from others.
- Jouni
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
