In my opinion the study should compare SRv6 solution which was why this study item was created in the first place with the protocol(s) dmm group developed which would be logical since the work is taking place in dmm?
I looked at dmm web site and in its 8 year history, there seems to be no new "protocol" defined so far. However the main idea with dmm was to work on distributing the mobility anchor which was HA or LMA in previous efforts. I noticed that when you look into 5G architecture, 3GPP already adopted this idea and developed a good solution based on GTP-U. In 4G there was a fixed anchor called PGW and now in 5G there are distributed anchors called UPFs. So here we do have a protocol which we can call dmm protocol. IMHO, the study should compare SRv6 with GTP-U and that is probably going to serve 3GPP purposes as well as other parties. Regards, Behcet >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
