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
