From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Wed Aug 11 14:43:32 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@ietf.org Delivered-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 0B52E28C0CE; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:43:31 -0700 (PDT) From: IESG Secretary To: IETF Announcement list Cc: dmm@ietf.org, maxpassion@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20100811214332.0B52E28C0CE@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [dmm] New Non-WG Mailing List: dmm -- Distributed Mobility Management X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:43:32 -0000 A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. List address: dmm@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/ To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm Description: This list is for DMM (distributed mobility management) related discussions. DMM is aimed to extend current IP mobility solution for flat network architecture. For additional information, please contact the list administrators. From telemaco.melia@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Aug 17 02:06:14 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5625F3A688A for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:06:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vVF0nJFhD7Tg for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA433A6814 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id o7H96hL4018002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:06:44 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.54]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:06:43 +0200 From: "MELIA, TELEMACO (TELEMACO)" To: "dmm@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:06:42 +0200 Thread-Topic: this is a test Thread-Index: Acs964KL31lQ3AyYRSeuTGPweCPUDQ== Message-ID: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699FRMRSSXCHMBSE_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.13 Subject: [dmm] this is a test X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:06:14 -0000 --_000_3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699FRMRSSXCHMBSE_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please ignore telemaco --_000_3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699FRMRSSXCHMBSE_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please ignore
 
telemaco
 
 --_000_3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699FRMRSSXCHMBSE_-- From charliep@computer.org Tue Aug 17 13:20:11 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425663A69F9 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:20:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.268 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.528, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wvNtOShuoyYd for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.63]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1446E3A69EE for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [12.204.153.98] (helo=[10.166.130.10]) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1OlSeM-0004sF-1v for dmm@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:20:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4C6AEF13.3010606@computer.org> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:20:35 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmm@ietf.org References: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52fd92e8db7f4d7f66f45ac07387418c85350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 12.204.153.98 Subject: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:20:11 -0000 Hello folks, I've got problems with HMIP. I think in the context of DMM, we should consider a new design for Hierarchical Mobile IP. One major problem is that there's only one level of hierarchy. Experience with LTE and EVDO network designs already shows this is wrong. I co-authored drafts for both IPv4 and IPv6 with the necessary multi-level protocol specification. Due to political wrangling, that text did not survive, and the IPv6 document was replaced by what has now become HMIPv6. Would anyone on this mailing list support a new effort for such a multi-level hierarchy for Mobile IP? It also seems to me that some levels of the hierarchy should be able to use a proxy-based design -- something perhaps using elements of PMIP. This should be done smoothly so we do not experience the ambiguities which have been under discussion in the netlmm/netext working groups. Regards, Charlie P. From sgundave@cisco.com Tue Aug 17 14:13:11 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF2E3A6817 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:13:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.23 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.369, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FKIgmN6VF1-h for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6EB3A67EF for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAO+YakyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACgPnGkXpt4hTcEhDGIHw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,223,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="352968460" Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2010 21:13:45 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7HLDj2j008448; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:13:45 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:13:45 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:13:44 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4C6AEF13.3010606@computer.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] Thread-Index: Acs+SbJylG82vtvBRKK1C8+517L2ngABbS/A References: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4C6AEF13.3010606@computer.org> From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2010 21:13:45.0870 (UTC) FILETIME=[13FB4AE0:01CB3E51] Subject: Re: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:13:11 -0000 Hi Charlie: The chaining models based on client-based mobility alone will not carry too much value. Given the industry direction towards non-client centric models, HMIP faces the same issue. Nothing wrong with the protocol, it's the lack of alignment with network-based mobility models that's the reason for lack of adoption. The chaining models completely based on network-based approach, or the mix of client-centric and network-centric surely will have some value. We did try to cover some of these cases in RFC-5213, but we had to take that out from the spec for scoping reasons. Some of this work got moved into Gerardo's consolidated spec from many drafts: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-06.txt If you have some proposal, it will be good to know the chaining approaches that you have in mind. To your specific question, surely it makes sense to solve few issues in this space, but not sure if we have a clear picture on the problem set. Regards Sri -----Original Message----- From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:21 PM To: dmm@ietf.org Subject: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] Hello folks, I've got problems with HMIP. I think in the context of DMM, we should consider a new design for Hierarchical Mobile IP. One major problem is that there's only one level of hierarchy. Experience with LTE and EVDO network designs already shows this is wrong. I co-authored drafts for both IPv4 and IPv6 with the necessary multi-level protocol specification. Due to political wrangling, that text did not survive, and the IPv6 document was replaced by what has now become HMIPv6. Would anyone on this mailing list support a new effort for such a multi-level hierarchy for Mobile IP? It also seems to me that some levels of the hierarchy should be able to use a proxy-based design -- something perhaps using elements of PMIP. This should be done smoothly so we do not experience the ambiguities which have been under discussion in the netlmm/netext working groups. Regards, Charlie P. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm From wassim.haddad@ericsson.com Tue Aug 17 14:37:39 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DF93A68AC for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:37:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.44 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.841, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XV+WSfgzqOc0 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2B43A6869 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7HLaAnS008596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:36:18 -0500 Received: from wassim-haddad.dyn.sj.us.am.ericsson.se (147.117.20.213) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.92) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.234.1; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:36:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-7-978576029"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: Wassim Haddad In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:36:10 -0700 Message-ID: <933C36EF-AAC0-4DF9-8670-59873DC33233@ericsson.com> References: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4C6AEF13.3010606@computer.org> To: Sri Gundavelli X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: Wassim Haddad , "dmm@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:37:40 -0000 --Apple-Mail-7-978576029 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, On Aug 17, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > The chaining models based on client-based mobility alone will not = carry > too much value. Given the industry direction towards non-client = centric > models, HMIP faces the same issue. Nothing wrong with the protocol, = it's > the lack of alignment with network-based mobility models that's the > reason for lack of adoption. =3D> IMHO, network based mobility alone falls also in the same category = than=20 client-based mobility alone (and PMIP is one proof!). > The chaining models completely based on network-based approach, or the > mix of client-centric and network-centric surely will have some value. =3D> IMHO, it is the second model (i.e., mix) which would be better = positioned to=20 answer future requirements. Regards, Wassim H. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Charles E. Perkins > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:21 PM > To: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] >=20 >=20 > Hello folks, >=20 > I've got problems with HMIP. I think in the context > of DMM, we should consider a new design for Hierarchical > Mobile IP. One major problem is that there's only one > level of hierarchy. Experience with LTE and EVDO network > designs already shows this is wrong. >=20 > I co-authored drafts for both IPv4 and IPv6 with the > necessary multi-level protocol specification. Due > to political wrangling, that text did not survive, > and the IPv6 document was replaced by what has now > become HMIPv6. >=20 > Would anyone on this mailing list support a new effort > for such a multi-level hierarchy for Mobile IP? >=20 > It also seems to me that some levels of the hierarchy > should be able to use a proxy-based design -- something > perhaps using elements of PMIP. This should be done > smoothly so we do not experience the ambiguities which > have been under discussion in the netlmm/netext working > groups. >=20 > Regards, > Charlie P. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Regards, Wassim H. --Apple-Mail-7-978576029 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIENDCCBDAw ggMYoAMCAQICEQDYVPUywOyjtwh/x6nlhfS/MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMDkxETAPBgNVBAoMCEVy aWNzc29uMSQwIgYDVQQDDBtFcmljc3NvbiBOTCBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIENBMDEwHhcNMDkxMDI5MTU1 ODU3WhcNMTIxMDI5MTU1ODU0WjBoMREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEWMBQGA1UEAwwNV2Fzc2lt IEhhZGRhZDEQMA4GA1UEBRMHZXdhc2hhZDEpMCcGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYad2Fzc2ltLmhhZGRhZEBl cmljc3Nvbi5jb20wgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAJnf3T/nroDokwgzv1ob54nr EQ2qce7b8P0j9dhnGFPhfROZzOb8Uuo1MPaSpDLVObZgSisoJ5JU0euu6pVcofmLQPZzdWzooCBa s3Y2tuRtkvFgcZoDKJoo7sorV6yyeRwA+QZpvyS1A7cpsqxjB7jevoXrIFhjs79safz+/Ou/AgMB AAGjggGGMIIBgjCBwAYDVR0fBIG4MIG1MIGyoIGvoIGshjdodHRwOi8vY3JsLnRydXN0LnRlbGlh LmNvbS9Fcmljc3Nvbk5MSW5kaXZpZHVhbENBMDEuY3JshnFsZGFwOi8vbGRhcC50cnVzdC50ZWxp YS5jb20vY249RXJpY3Nzb24lMjBOTCUyMEluZGl2aWR1YWwlMjBDQTAxLG89RXJpY3Nzb24/Y2Vy dGlmaWNhdGVyZXZvY2F0aW9ubGlzdDtiaW5hcnk/YmFzZTAlBgNVHREEHjAcgRp3YXNzaW0uaGFk ZGFkQGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbTBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGBiqFcGsBATAxMC8GCCsGAQUFBwIBFiNodHRw Oi8vd3d3LmVyaWNzc29uLmNvbS9sZWdhbC5zaHRtbDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUiY5imSIHErhSp2V+9kdO JARmWScwHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUlifDuN6lX11EPjlS5UWxdl9jMJswDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgWgMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBIXqbs40JZUFTT/PWl6A0c3S85eU48TVXuwP2wkVhrBUz+45qAo0Yo FV3gDreoDoFGRFlHS5UiID7OUUyY4JJ0BCoqTPU6DGFjruZVNWk6gaL0WiFgqp0ro4CtysRmV1r1 no3JAaVcvZ4Hf7kOx2SxvresNlGlcDqk7eEABucmHNeQdDLCr61Ssrv3/Z6nMlI1IVLydpvqwgB8 7a0tqeejE3+QpTF0mLZWp1YYKz8hYSMX7MyJug372fN3MgWl7KiV0TOPMSn+yJZemwGl3xVmoT7j N/1/J6ApI5bLJrLNUT2UYjnBAyw3RIrzYoMuHJZu9L0f1gBPC8tLC0FsDEjAMYICFTCCAhECAQEw TjA5MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEkMCIGA1UEAwwbRXJpY3Nzb24gTkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBD QTAxAhEA2FT1MsDso7cIf8ep5YX0vzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBHTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZI hvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xMDA4MTcyMTM2MTBaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBRZSird tqFLlw93+PFl1B7gKCNVADBdBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxUDBOMDkxETAPBgNVBAoMCEVyaWNzc29uMSQw IgYDVQQDDBtFcmljc3NvbiBOTCBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIENBMDECEQDYVPUywOyjtwh/x6nlhfS/MF8G CyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMVCgTjA5MREwDwYDVQQKDAhFcmljc3NvbjEkMCIGA1UEAwwbRXJpY3Nzb24g TkwgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBDQTAxAhEA2FT1MsDso7cIf8ep5YX0vzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASBgIyR RRvVVHOu+ixuhwvfhma61ZdUmizMjsDTd9ZcvCgrNnewUyYcI6mkLclO4avqOA3MuEnZGEgPXmjt hN6AxDrU7JfowHJUHTmxfdKQamHdwNY6xA/9fCC7aZ38I4YDfLskJ4DCEncFlSiIsuXkdD36vkkp nEJDpTv+MJck2GK+AAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-7-978576029-- From sgundave@cisco.com Tue Aug 17 14:52:44 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD453A67F3 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:52:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0iK+hPj-INGc for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020243A66B4 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAF6hakyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACgP3GkTZt0hTcEhDGIHw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,224,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="273071576" Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2010 21:53:18 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7HLrIC6000667; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:53:18 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:53:18 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:53:09 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <933C36EF-AAC0-4DF9-8670-59873DC33233@ericsson.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] Thread-Index: Acs+VD71XT9fAySNQC+oQsF8zkM/nQAAfr8w References: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4C6AEF13.3010606@computer.org> <933C36EF-AAC0-4DF9-8670-59873DC33233@ericsson.com> From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" To: "Wassim Haddad" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2010 21:53:18.0683 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A49D2B0:01CB3E56] Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:52:44 -0000 > The chaining models based on client-based mobility alone will not carry > too much value. Given the industry direction towards non-client centric > models, HMIP faces the same issue. Nothing wrong with the protocol, it's > the lack of alignment with network-based mobility models that's the > reason for lack of adoption. =3D> IMHO, network based mobility alone falls also in the same category than=20 client-based mobility alone (and PMIP is one proof!). [Sri] Ok. Fair enough, given the GTP dominance. > The chaining models completely based on network-based approach, or the > mix of client-centric and network-centric surely will have some value. =3D> IMHO, it is the second model (i.e., mix) which would be better positioned to=20 answer future requirements. Regards, Wassim H. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Charles E. Perkins > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:21 PM > To: dmm@ietf.org > Subject: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] >=20 >=20 > Hello folks, >=20 > I've got problems with HMIP. I think in the context > of DMM, we should consider a new design for Hierarchical > Mobile IP. One major problem is that there's only one > level of hierarchy. Experience with LTE and EVDO network > designs already shows this is wrong. >=20 > I co-authored drafts for both IPv4 and IPv6 with the > necessary multi-level protocol specification. Due > to political wrangling, that text did not survive, > and the IPv6 document was replaced by what has now > become HMIPv6. >=20 > Would anyone on this mailing list support a new effort > for such a multi-level hierarchy for Mobile IP? >=20 > It also seems to me that some levels of the hierarchy > should be able to use a proxy-based design -- something > perhaps using elements of PMIP. This should be done > smoothly so we do not experience the ambiguities which > have been under discussion in the netlmm/netext working > groups. >=20 > Regards, > Charlie P. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Regards, Wassim H. From sgundave@cisco.com Tue Aug 17 14:58:52 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E183A68BD for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:58:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.332, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tE3qS-srHGsz for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4756F3A6869 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAD6jakyrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACgQHGkTZt0hTcEhDGIHw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,224,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="234437010" Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2010 21:59:27 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7HLxDid004449; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:59:26 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:59:16 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:59:13 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <933C36EF-AAC0-4DF9-8670-59873DC33233@ericsson.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] Thread-Index: Acs+VD71XT9fAySNQC+oQsF8zkM/nQAAq9ug References: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4C6AEF13.3010606@computer.org> <933C36EF-AAC0-4DF9-8670-59873DC33233@ericsson.com> From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" To: "Wassim Haddad" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2010 21:59:16.0149 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F5ACE50:01CB3E57] Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:58:52 -0000 One additional comment. > The chaining models completely based on network-based approach, or the > mix of client-centric and network-centric surely will have some value. =3D> IMHO, it is the second model (i.e., mix) which would be better positioned to=20 answer future requirements. But, honestly I do not see any development which suggests we are going to see a client stack insertion in every mobile or fixed terminal.=20 Not to take the discussion thread in a new direction, but this should be a key consideration in the chaining models. Sri From maxpassion@gmail.com Wed Aug 18 20:37:39 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1423A6A96 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:37:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.351 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0vOATfaYhd0y for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325D03A6817 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:37:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1so2594046qyk.10 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:38:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SyjrW1O4N0+RiUpbxObG8BUR1i1GpE/D0ss9En0Dq9g=; b=V2bP1NIMKuakjaj27ONJQ85lusyCvzh2zDBhlJSjaVlv8e72GYK282BToRofM51DQU DKlY8B4v53S5SgYq/G8rK8fm+uTlnW1FSwIu+1YFfN4BhYcMPOHtIUwi3A3rVkbbCQxV nYKQGKwbwig//YMzfuOVBpkxby45UmioRhcRs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=xUb+MEKdNtRzr4MAneNAo12Q3oRZYxKRYjfgH5YOPeU55c99rbCoI9EqET8ZDNUthX NHw6gr0u1OqpVhn78EhNglluXwawWPuHMnRDTv8GSd5ybFz/8mBVSG1BcntFfZ97As0C ShOYIQGdYgBkDatY3EFZDda9qXf0pWuWk69QM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.240.145 with SMTP id la17mr6733615qcb.75.1282189089919; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:38:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.11.131 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:38:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C6AEF13.3010606@computer.org> References: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4C6AEF13.3010606@computer.org> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:38:09 +0800 Message-ID: From: liu dapeng To: charliep@computer.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 03:37:39 -0000 Hi Charlie: 2010/8/18, Charles E. Perkins : > > Hello folks, > > I've got problems with HMIP. I think in the context > of DMM, we should consider a new design for Hierarchical > Mobile IP. One major problem is that there's only one > level of hierarchy. Experience with LTE and EVDO network > designs already shows this is wrong. ==> May I ask a clarification question? Why LTE and EVDO network designs shows that is wrong of one level of hierachy? Regards, Dapeng Liu > I co-authored drafts for both IPv4 and IPv6 with the > necessary multi-level protocol specification. Due > to political wrangling, that text did not survive, > and the IPv6 document was replaced by what has now > become HMIPv6. > > Would anyone on this mailing list support a new effort > for such a multi-level hierarchy for Mobile IP? > > It also seems to me that some levels of the hierarchy > should be able to use a proxy-based design -- something > perhaps using elements of PMIP. This should be done > smoothly so we do not experience the ambiguities which > have been under discussion in the netlmm/netext working > groups. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > From charliep@computer.org Thu Aug 19 17:02:33 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2903A691D for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:02:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NOoivkZ9o29Q for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF1F3A68E7 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [12.204.153.98] (helo=[10.166.130.98]) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1OmF4R-0001Rq-T1; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:02:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4C6DC62A.1040002@computer.org> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:02:50 -0700 From: "Charles E. Perkins" Organization: Wichorus Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: liu dapeng References: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4C6AEF13.3010606@computer.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956abb457f1b4332f52213699fd6b7ca7b1ff3f2a81dfd06bb1350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 12.204.153.98 Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: charliep@computer.org List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:02:33 -0000 Hello Liu, Suppose there is a home agent somewhere in the Internet. Its link to the LTE P-GW would treat the P-GW's address as the CoA. The P-GW itself should have a home agent. This home agent "could" be used for tunnel management within LTE, retargeting the S5 GTP tunnel to whichever S-GW currently serves the mobile device. Furthermore, it would be sensible to use the same protocol for S-GW re-tunneling to eNodeB. Each of these "could" be either Client MIPv6 or Proxy MIPv6. The exact security arrangements are a matter of some interest, but all signaling with the UE "should" depend on the UE's security association with its home agent. This is so far distant from the actual design of LTE that I have a hard time explaining it even to myself, but so far it seems to make a great deal more engineering sense than the hodge-podge of signaling and IEs that constitute the heavy-weight and confusing signaling as it is current specified by 3GPP. In fact, I do not think there are very many people who really understand it. Constrast this with the quite simple matter of understanding a Mobile-IP based design. The same considerations hold for EVDO, although each component has different names and functions. One begins to wonder whether it was a matter of honor and principle for the 3GPP and 3GPP2 protocol architects to select incompatible names and functions for achieving the same goals. Regards, Charlie P. On 8/18/2010 8:38 PM, liu dapeng wrote: > Hi Charlie: > > 2010/8/18, Charles E. Perkins: >> >> Hello folks, >> >> I've got problems with HMIP. I think in the context >> of DMM, we should consider a new design for Hierarchical >> Mobile IP. One major problem is that there's only one >> level of hierarchy. Experience with LTE and EVDO network >> designs already shows this is wrong. > ==> > May I ask a clarification question? > Why LTE and EVDO network designs shows that is wrong of one level of hierachy? > > Regards, > Dapeng Liu > >> I co-authored drafts for both IPv4 and IPv6 with the >> necessary multi-level protocol specification. Due >> to political wrangling, that text did not survive, >> and the IPv6 document was replaced by what has now >> become HMIPv6. >> >> Would anyone on this mailing list support a new effort >> for such a multi-level hierarchy for Mobile IP? >> >> It also seems to me that some levels of the hierarchy >> should be able to use a proxy-based design -- something >> perhaps using elements of PMIP. This should be done >> smoothly so we do not experience the ambiguities which >> have been under discussion in the netlmm/netext working >> groups. >> >> Regards, >> Charlie P. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> > From maxpassion@gmail.com Thu Aug 19 19:57:23 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmm@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DA23A698D for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:57:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94ySCE8MjquL for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74E93A635F for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:57:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qwc9 with SMTP id 9so2669851qwc.31 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:57:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RGQ/ek5VUQxjtwGXcrfDKRL1r+k3NXmGmmuapFNXiCg=; b=EDuFtvEgYX70pB3AK31jOr5O9mU24JuoDy6YgHlLuAMIMyVg25CiBuRpYFb5ApxP9r f4y1UTO99YFsclOpKD8sWCdfrO8z10H25qevsd5kk6jE8K4ZhHse5sMycnqorFsCtDtS JqgSWgGwb8QycXl09LKtKKR3h1nQBgvAK5/FQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=WV+WwouMfneOrseJJy09NB046Hc1AVdKT932pi+4ooH+EatDoE9fNmWbjdwzBweQq0 hngvirSMW4nctadMWq7EMa7Dla6/bESZg7eU95yQSZhDNFLg0ZeHExK7w3/mpQtqGFSL fB83060VKY3DN7UQ6F6JF0928vXCG+QUY+tPg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.10.200 with SMTP id q8mr47102qcq.288.1282273076186; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.11.131 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:57:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C6DC62A.1040002@computer.org> References: <3D6C64F2D792B540BAAEBCEF6509363B0EE0B52699@FRMRSSXCHMBSE1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4C6AEF13.3010606@computer.org> <4C6DC62A.1040002@computer.org> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:57:56 +0800 Message-ID: From: liu dapeng To: charliep@computer.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmm] Hierarchical Mobile IP [proxy or otherwise] X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:57:23 -0000 Hi Charlie , Thanks for the detailed explanation, pls see comments inline. 2010/8/20, Charles E. Perkins : > Hello Liu, > > Suppose there is a home agent somewhere in the > Internet. Its link to the LTE P-GW would treat > the P-GW's address as the CoA. > > The P-GW itself should have a home agent. This > home agent "could" be used for tunnel management > within LTE, retargeting the S5 GTP tunnel to > whichever S-GW currently serves the mobile device. ==> In my understanding, normally, the UE's handover will only happen within a P-GW/HA domain. i.e. there is no inter-P-GW handover. If that is the case, is there any problem when an Internet HA connect to a LTE P-GW? The Internet HA may just consider the LTE UE as a static CN. Best Regards, Dapeng > Furthermore, it would be sensible to use the > same protocol for S-GW re-tunneling to eNodeB. > > Each of these "could" be either Client MIPv6 > or Proxy MIPv6. The exact security arrangements > are a matter of some interest, but all signaling > with the UE "should" depend on the UE's security > association with its home agent. > > This is so far distant from the actual design > of LTE that I have a hard time explaining it > even to myself, but so far it seems to make > a great deal more engineering sense than the > hodge-podge of signaling and IEs that constitute > the heavy-weight and confusing signaling as it > is current specified by 3GPP. In fact, I do > not think there are very many people who really > understand it. Constrast this with the quite > simple matter of understanding a Mobile-IP > based design. > > The same considerations hold for EVDO, although > each component has different names and functions. > One begins to wonder whether it was a matter of > honor and principle for the 3GPP and 3GPP2 protocol > architects to select incompatible names and > functions for achieving the same goals. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > > On 8/18/2010 8:38 PM, liu dapeng wrote: >> Hi Charlie: >> >> 2010/8/18, Charles E. Perkins: >>> >>> Hello folks, >>> >>> I've got problems with HMIP. I think in the context >>> of DMM, we should consider a new design for Hierarchical >>> Mobile IP. One major problem is that there's only one >>> level of hierarchy. Experience with LTE and EVDO network >>> designs already shows this is wrong. >> ==> >> May I ask a clarification question? >> Why LTE and EVDO network designs shows that is wrong of one level of >> hierachy? >> >> Regards, >> Dapeng Liu >> >>> I co-authored drafts for both IPv4 and IPv6 with the >>> necessary multi-level protocol specification. Due >>> to political wrangling, that text did not survive, >>> and the IPv6 document was replaced by what has now >>> become HMIPv6. >>> >>> Would anyone on this mailing list support a new effort >>> for such a multi-level hierarchy for Mobile IP? >>> >>> It also seems to me that some levels of the hierarchy >>> should be able to use a proxy-based design -- something >>> perhaps using elements of PMIP. This should be done >>> smoothly so we do not experience the ambiguities which >>> have been under discussion in the netlmm/netext working >>> groups. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Charlie P. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> dmm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>> >> > >