Just to point out that GTP-U also carries control information, which none of the existing *MIP user plane tunnels do not do today.
Regarding GTP-C part, 3GPP TS29.275 has done pretty thorough job already mapping GTPv2-C to PMIP signaling, so using GTP-U instead of GRE or IPIP should be rather straightforward if someone were to do it. - Jouni On Sep 6, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Alper Yegin wrote: > Hi Charlie, > > GTP has its data-plane (GTP-U) and control-plane (GTP-C). > I think you are talking about using Mobile IP signaling in-place of GTP-C to > enable GTP-U. > If so, I think it'd technically work. But, for adoption by 3GPP standards and > deployments, we'd need to make a case for using Mobile IP instead of GTP-C. > > Alper > > > On Sep 5, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Charlie Perkins wrote: > >> >> Hello folks, >> >> I have made various presentations at IETF, some from many years >> ago, proposing that Mobile IP enable use of GTP as a tunneling >> option. I still think that would be a good idea. Should I re-re-revive >> a draft stating this in more detail? >> >> Regards, >> Charlie P. >> >> >> On 9/5/2014 1:48 AM, Alper Yegin wrote: >>> Alex, >>> >>> DMM is not meant to be only about a bunch of MIP-based solutions. >>> There are various components in DMM solution space that'd also work with >>> GTP-based architectures. >>> For example, identifying the mobility needs of flows. >>> Or, conveying the mobility characteristic of a prefix to the UE. >>> >>> Alper >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >>> >>>> Le 03/09/2014 20:53, Brian Haberman a écrit : >>>>> Behcet, >>>>> >>>>> On 9/3/14 2:33 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >>>>>> You don't seem to understand my points. >>>>> That is quite possible. Your comment on the list was "I am against any >>>>> deployment work before we decide on a solution..." >>>>> >>>>> I read that as an objection to having the deployment models work item on >>>>> the agenda. Please do tell me what I am missing. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Brian >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I am following the discussion and me too I do not quite understand what is >>>> the complain. >>>> >>>> I am happy to learn that a if a WG is to be formed then it would be around >>>> a solution rather than just requirements or architecture. >>>> >>>> That said, I would like to express a worry along similar lines. >>>> >>>> In DMM, precedents and the keen NETEXT, there seems to be a hard-rooted >>>> disconnect between the product developped - (P)Mobile IP - and the >>>> deployments. We know for a fact that 3GPP deployments (2G/3G/4G) do not >>>> use (P)Mobile IP. We also know that 3GPP specs do mention Mobile IP. To >>>> such a point that I wonder whether 3GPP has not the same disconnect as >>>> here. >>>> >>>> On another hand, we do have indications of where (P)Mobile IP is used - >>>> the trials, the projects, the kernel code, and not least the slideware >>>> attracting real customers. >>>> >>>> The worry: develop DMM protocol while continuing the disconnect. >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
