Jouni, >> >> I've updated the list with the I-Ds suggested by Behcet/Fred/Jouni. >> >> Please see below for my opinions about how each category relates to the >> overall work. >> Comments welcome. >> * >> * >> * >> * >> *1. Per-flow IP address configuration according to mobility needs* > > "Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes" > >> Apps indicating their mobility needs to the IP stack on the MN, and >> associated IP configuration signaling between the MN and the network. >> >> draft-bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix-03 >> draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties-00.txt >> draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-02 > > Then we have a number of I-Ds from MIF: > > draft-kk-mpvd-ndp-support > draft-kkb-mpvd-dhcp-support > draft-kkbg-mpvd-id > > These intend to build the overall method of conveying the signaling between > the network and the mn. There are no spacific use cases described for > mobility yet but those are then amendments for the above. >
MIF problem space is different than DMM's. We should not create any dependency between the two. > draft-liu-dmm-mobility-api > I'll add that. Alper > Above has extensions to RFC5014 for applications to check prefix properties. > > >> This category is essential, given that we all agree mobility will be >> treated on a per-flow basis. >> (and once we dive into the category, I'd say the aforementioned I-Ds are >> complementary). >> >> >> >> *2. Mobility solution selection * > > In my optinion this also fits under "Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes > and network nodes". > >> MN determining the type of mobility solution(s) it'd apply to a given flow. >> >> draft-yegin-ip-mobility-orchestrator-00 >> >> In recognition of L4+ mobility solutions (such as MPTCP, SIP, apps >> having their own), this also becomes essential for a DMM solution. Some >> people may argue, discussion is very welcome. >> >> >> >> *3. IP anchor selection* > > "Enhanced mobility anchoring" > >> MN selecting the IP anchor node after it decides to use IP anchoring >> (whether in the access network or the core network). >> >> draft-aliahmad-dmm-anchor-selection-00.txt >> >> This category is supporting the Category 4, 5 and 6. This is about more >> intelligent way of picking the IP anchor once the type of anchor is >> determined. >> This may produce a standalone I-D, or may be folded into individual >> solutions in those categories. >> >> >> *4. Access network anchoring* > > Still related to "Enhanced mobility anchoring". Many of these I-Ds handle the > anchor change issues (like tunneling between the anchors). > >> Anchoring IP address within the access network using IP-in-IP tunneling. >> >> draft-bernardos-dmm-cmip-01 >> draft-bernardos-dmm-pmip-03 >> draft-bernardos-dmm-distributed-anchoring-04 >> draft-chan-dmm-enhanced-mobility-anchoring-00 >> draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-00.txt >> draft-seite-dmm-dma-07.txt >> draft-xuan-dmm-nemo-dmm-02.txt >> draft-korhonen-dmm-local-prefix-01 >> >> The need for this category is well-understood. The challenge is having >> plethora of solutions. Though the main concept is common… >> >> >> *5. Corresponding node/network anchoring* > > Still under "Enhanced mobility anchoring". > >> Anchoring IP address on the Corresponding Node or Corresponding Network. >> >> Mobile IPv6 route optimization >> draft-yegin-dmm-cnet-homing-02 >> draft-xiong-dmm-ip-reachability-01 >> draft-templin-aerolink-29 >> >> This category of solutions are also needed (for their ability to produce >> better paths and different applicability with respect to the Category 4) >> >> >> *6. Host-route based intra-domain solutions* > > "Forwarding path and signalling management" > >> Non-tunneling solutions. >> >> draft-chan-dmm-enhanced-mobility-anchoring-00 >> draft-matsushima-stateless-uplane-vepc-02 >> draft-mccann-dmm-flatarch-00 >> draft-sarikaya-dmm-for-wifi-00.txt >> >> Solutions in this category are competing with the Category 4 type >> solutions. There are various pros and cons. IMHO, we cannot resolve that >> contest, hence we should produce solution for both categories and let >> the industry pick and choose. Given that these solutions are isolated >> from the other components (categories), standardizing both should not >> have adverse impact on the overall DMM complexity. >> >> Alper > > - 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
