Marco Liebsch | 24 Oct 18:20 2014
Picon

[FPSM] notes from call#1

Please find below some notes from last telco about the DMM work item Forwarding Path and Signaling Management.

 

Best regards,

marco

 

 

--- notes from telco 2014-10-19: ---

 

 

Check if everybody is on the same page w.r.t. objectives.

Associated charter item has been read and focus of work item (WI) has been summarized and agreed upon:

 

à This work item is about the specification of the C-/D-Plane reference interface and semantics without being specific to a particular protocol

 

Discussion about illustration  of WI scope.

 

Figure

 

Comments and conclusions from discussion:

 

Provide examples for a Controller: LMA-C, MAG-C, OpenFlow-C

Example for multiple-controller space: MAG-C and LMA-C, can use PMIPv6 as inter-controller protocol.

 

Type of controller should not matter for the generic specification in this WI.

 

Controller, which is responsible for a particular D-Plane function, must be unambiguous.

 

Multiple controllers must be synchronized (prerequisite). (marco’s note: Maybe we should look at this again, as we
may not mandate this in any case)

 

Agreement that roaming should be addressed. May imply inter-controller communication (Home-Foreign network controller).
However, specification of the inter-controller interface is out of scope.
Focus is the interface between controller(s) and Data Plane Node (DPN).

 

This work assumes that each entity, which requires mobility management, knows how to contact a controller.

 

? Need to differentiate DPA, DPN and other transport nodes, such as routers and switches, which terminate
the specified interface?

! So far yes

 

Need to provide a clear definition of terms ‘DPA’ and ‘DPN’ in the specification.

Proposals:

DPA owns IP address (?)

DPN just performs routing.

Discussion about IP address ‘ownership’ at DPA. No need that IP address fits into the DPA’s network.

Better:

DPA must receive traffic from a foreign network

 

Discussion about special role of BGP Speakers on control and data plane node, in case BGP is used as protocol base to implement
this specification. No clear ‘policy control’ and ‘policy enforcement’ roles. No concerns with this, just an observation.

 

? Is this work tailored to a specific solution?

! No, it’s a utility. May be used to enable any deployment where Control- and Data-Plane are separated.

 

Agreed procedure: Progress the specification and description of the generic protocol interface. Authors of existing and new
solution drafts should confirm that this specification supports their protocol.

 

Another WI telco before IETF91? Supported!

Find suitable date/time through doodle.

 

--- end of telco ---

 

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Marco Liebsch | 24 Oct 16:00 2014
Picon

[FPSM] work item call#2

Folks,

the clear winner for our next telco on the work item about Forwarding Path and Signaling Management
is Monday, 3rd November 2014, 16:00 CET.

 

Duration: 90min.

 

I will send an agenda around before the meeting.

 

If you would like to see a particular item on the agenda, please let me know.

 

Best regards,

marco

 

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Behcet Sarikaya | 23 Oct 22:03 2014
Picon

offlisted mails

 Hi all,

If you send me an email related to dmm issues and you do not wish the
mail to be cc'ed or forwarded to the list,
please MARK your mail clearly on the subject line as offlisted.
You may wish to send the mail to 20 or so other people, I don't care.

Otherwise I may inadvertently cc it to the list.

Let this be known.

Regards,

Behcet
Alper Yegin | 23 Oct 20:44 2014

Mobility Exposure and Selection WT call#1

Folks,

We held our first meeting on Mobility Exposure and Selection WT today.
The meeting was attended by: Fred, Danny, Jouni, Xinpeng, Anthony, John K., Byoung-Jo "J", Alper.

You can see the outcome of the first call as captured in the following PPT:
http://yegin.org/NGmobility/DMM_WG_Exposure_Selection_WT-Call1.pptx

Cheers,

Alper
Behcet Sarikaya | 23 Oct 20:40 2014
Picon

Fwd: DMM's benefits

 my apologies for forwarding this conversation to this list without
permission from Alper.

Behcet

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012 <at> gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: DMM's benefits
To: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin <at> yegin.org>, "dmm <at> ietf.org" <dmm <at> ietf.org>
Cc: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam <at> gmail.com>, Sri Gundavelli
<sgundave <at> cisco.com>, "karagian <at> cs.utwente.nl"
<karagian <at> cs.utwente.nl>, Kostas Pentikousis <k.pentikousis <at> eict.de>,
Dapeng Liu <liudapeng <at> chinamobile.com>, Marco Liebsch
<Marco.Liebsch <at> neclab.eu>, Peter McCann <Peter.McCann <at> huawei.com>, h
chan <h.anthony.chan <at> huawei.com>, Ryuji Wakikawa
<ryuji.wakikawa <at> gmail.com>, "Zuniga, Juan Carlos"
<JuanCarlos.Zuniga <at> interdigital.com>, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
<cjbc <at> it.uc3m.es>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan <at> ericsson.com>,
"pierrick.seite <at> orange.com IMT/OLN" <pierrick.seite <at> orange.com>,
Charlie Perkins <Charlie.Perkins <at> huawei.com>, Danny Moses
<danny.moses <at> intel.com>, John Kaippallimalil
<John.Kaippallimalil <at> huawei.com>

 Hi all,

Two observations:
1. I don't understand why this mail was not sent to dmm list? So I added it now.
2. It was amazing to see the amount of speculation made just based on
the acronym DMM (in Alper's mail).

How do we know what DMM solution (let me clarify it a bit) will look
like so we can talk about its performance?

Isn't this what dmm WG should work on first, keeping in mind
performance benefits and other aspects?

Regards,

Behcet

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Alper Yegin <alper.yegin <at> yegin.org> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> We've been talking about cost reduction and e2e latency reduction as the benefits of DMM (compared to
current architectures).
> Can you point to any measurements, analysis, simulation, data to back that up?
>
> I remember Dapeng's analysis from earlier meetings. Do you have anything else handy?
> I need to compile additional evidence ...
>
> Alper
>

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Marco Liebsch | 21 Oct 21:58 2014
Picon

[FPSM] WT call#2

Folks,
as per the conclusion of first telco about Forwarding Path and Signaling Management (FPSM),
we considered to schedule a 2nd call before IETF91. Please fill the following doodle if you’re interested
in attending the call. Let’s see if we can bring most people together.  

 

http://doodle.com/pxairi9w9c6mgfb3

 

Best regards,

marco

 

--

 

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Brian Haberman | 21 Oct 19:25 2014
Picon

Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband Forum Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)"

Something for you to be aware of...

Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Liaison Statement, "Broadband Forum Work on “Hybrid Access
for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)"
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:06:52 -0700
From: Liaison Statement Management Tool <lsmt@...>
To: The IETF Chair <chair@...>
CC: david.i.allan@..., sven.ooghe@...,
gbingham@...,
guiu.fabregas@..., The IESG
<iesg@...>, David Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@...>,
rmersh@..., david.j.thorne@...,
christophe.alter@...

Title: Broadband Forum Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks”
(WT-348)
Submission Date: 2014-10-21
URL of the IETF Web page: http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1355/

From: Broadband Forum (Christophe Alter <christophe.alter@...>)
To: The IETF (The IETF Chair <chair@...>)
Cc: The IESG <iesg@...>,David Sinicrope
<david.sinicrope@...>,christophe.alter@...,david.i.allan <at> ericsson.com,david.j.thorne@...,sven.ooghe@...,guiu.fabregas@...,rmersh@...,gbingham <at> broadband-forum.org
Response Contact:
Technical Contact:
Purpose: For information

Body: Dear IETF and 3GPP colleagues,

At the Broadband Forum Meeting held recently in Dublin, Ireland, the End
to End Architecture
Working Group has approved and begun work on a new project called
“WT-348 Hybrid Access for
Broadband Networks” defining architectural requirements to allow
coordinated and, when
needed, simultaneous use of fixed broadband access and 3GPP access
networks for
converged operators.

The business drivers for this work include enabling service providers to
offer faster service
provisioning and fulfillment, higher throughput and increased WAN
reliability.

We will keep you informed of this work as it progresses.

The Broadband Forum’s Q4 meeting will be held December 8 - 12, 2014 in
Taipei, Taiwan.

Sincerely,
Christophe Alter,
Broadband Forum Technical Committee Chair
Attachments:

    Broadband Forum Work on “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks” (WT-348)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2014-10-21-broadband-forum-the-ietf-broadband-forum-work-on-hybrid-access-for-broadband-networks-wt-348-attachment-1.pdf

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Behcet Sarikaya | 20 Oct 20:16 2014
Picon

Re: AERO and Mobile IP comparison

 Hi Fred,

 I think your draft is now Rev. 44 at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-aerolink-44

I don't really have any comments on the text. But if you have been
wondering why AERO reminds people Mobile IP or Proxy Mobile IP or
MOBIKE?

I classify those protocols as 20th century protocols. It seems like
AERO is very much like them.

I think that in dmm maybe we should look into 21st century protocols.
That may mean designing with new concepts like
control plane/data plane separation,
virtualization, as in vEPC,
cloud,
and SDN control.

Regards,

Behcet
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Templin, Fred L
<Fred.L.Templin@...> wrote:
> Hi Charlie,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:charles.perkins@...]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 1:25 PM
>> To: Templin, Fred L; dmm@...
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] AERO and Mobile IP comparison
>>
>> Hello Fred,
>>
>> A few little follow-up questions...
>>
>> On 10/7/2014 11:39 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>> >> From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:charles.perkins@...]
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >> This implies local-only mobility, right?
>> > Not just local, but global also. Take for example an AERO mobile router that is connecting
>> > over an access link provided by some ISP other than its home network. In that case, the
>> > node typically remains connected to its home link by setting up a VPN connection via a
>> > security gateway connected to its home network. In that case, the AERO link is said to
>> > be extended *through* the security gateway. So, the AERO mobile router remains
>> > tethered to its home link via the VPN, but  it can set up route optimization with Internet
>> > correspondents in a manner similar to MIPv6. In that case, communications with the
>> > Internet correspondent can bypass the home network.
>>
>> - Is the VPN setup part of AERO?
>
> The AERO Client requests a DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation as part of the VPN setup. The
> security gateway (acting as an AERO Server) delegates the prefix and sets up a
> neighbor cache entry for the Client.
>
>> - How does the mobile router know whether or not to do this?
>
> The AERO Client needs to know whether it is connecting to an access link provided by
> the home network or by an ISP outside of the home network. One way of doing this is
> to examine the connection-specific DNS suffix the Client gets when it connects to the
> access link and comparing it to the home network DNS suffix.
>
> When I think about my laptop computer user experience, I have to perform a manual
> intervention to select a security gateway and set up the VPN when I am connecting via
> an Internet access link. That would be OK and compatible with AERO as well, but would
> be much better if it were automated. Whether it can be fully automated depends on
> what kind of security credentials are necessary to establish the VPN, e.g., whether
> certificates alone are sufficient or whether some kind of active badge needs to be
> swiped, etc. Do you know more about this?
>
>> - Why would the external AERO servers admit traffic from the AERO client?
>
> The external AERO Servers are security gateways that also delegate AERO Client
> Prefixes (ACPs) to Clients using DHCPv6 PD. During PD, the Server performs an
> additional layer of authentication for the Client above and beyond what is done
> for establishing the VPN. So, the Server has a way of knowing that the Client is
> permitted to source packets from the delegated ACP.
>
>>      Or, is AERO completely out of the picture for external networks?
>
> External networks as in something that does not have hard perimeters with
> security gateways - maybe like a university campus network? I'll have to think
> more about that, but in that case there may need to be some other trust basis
> besides source address verification and IPsec tunnels. Any ideas?
>
>> - Is the route optimization simply a matter of VPN to the correspondent
>> node?
>
> VPN to the correspondent node (triggered by AERO mechanisms) is certainly
> a use case that we don't want to rule out.
>
>>      Or, did you mean to suggest use of the MIPv6 mechanisms?
>
> For communications with correspondents that do not require IPsec protection,
> the mechanism is the same as the MIPv6 Return Routability, only using IPv6
> ND messaging for signaling. Otherwise, I just studied the RR procedure in
> RFC6275 and pretty much borrowed what I saw there for AERO.
>
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@...
>
>> Regards,
>> Charlie P.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@...
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
The IESG | 20 Oct 18:35 2014
Picon

WG Action: Rechartered Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)

The Distributed Mobility Management (dmm) working group in the Internet
Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information please
contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.

Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Active WG

Chairs:
  Dapeng Liu <liudapeng <at> chinamobile.com>
  Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam <at> gmail.com>

Assigned Area Director:
  Brian Haberman <brian <at> innovationslab.net>

Mailing list
  Address: dmm <at> ietf.org
  To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
  Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm

Charter:

Mobility management solutions lie at the center of the wireless Internet
and enable mobile devices to partake in IP networks anytime and
anywhere. The IETF Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group
(WG) specifies solutions for IP networks so that traffic between mobile
and correspondent nodes can take an optimal route. DMM solutions aim for
transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of active
transport level sessions when mobile hosts or mobile networks change
their point of attachment to the Internet.

Wireless network deployments have traditionally relied on hierarchical
schemes that often lead to centralized deployment models, where a small
number of mobility anchors manage both mobility and reachability for a
mobile node. The DMM WG will consider the latest developments in mobile
networking research and operational practice (i.e. flattening network
architectures, the impact of virtualization, new deployment needs as
wireless access technologies evolve in the coming years) and will
describe how distributed mobility management addresses the new needs in
this area better than previously standardized solutions.

A topic of particular focus will be mobility anchoring in this new
context, and the DMM working group is chartered to work on
maintenance-oriented extensions of the Mobile IPv6 protocol family (RFC
5213, RFC 5844, RFC 5555, RFC 5568, and RFC 6275) as well as new
approaches which capitalize on other protocols specified by the IETF.
For example, mobility management in a limited area, such as within an
autonomous system, is not strictly limited to mentioned IP mobility
protocols but can be any existing or a new protocol solution enabling
the movement of a mobile node such as routing protocols. When extending
protocols that are not based on Mobile IP, DMM solutions will have to be
reviewed by the corresponding WGs.

IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile host/router and the
access networks. DMM solutions are primarily targeted at IPv6
deployments and are not required to support IPv4, in particular for the
case where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. DMM solutions
must maintain backward compatibility:  If the network or the mobile
host/router does not support the distributed mobility management
protocol that should not prevent the mobile host/router gaining basic
access (i.e., nomadic) to the network.

Contrary to earlier IP mobility protocols, mobility management signaling
paths and end-user traffic forwarding paths may differ. Further,
mobility-related functions may be located in separate network nodes. DMM
solutions should not distinguish between physical or virtualized
networking functions. Whenever applicable, clarifications and additional
features/capabilities for specific networking function deployment
models, e.g. in virtualized environments, are in-scope and encouraged.
Solutions may also specify the selection between the care-of addresses
and home address(es)/prefix(es) for different application use cases.

The working group will produce one or more documents on the following
work item topics.

      o Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
        describe the target high-level network architectures and
        deployment models where distributed mobility management
        protocol solutions would apply.

      o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a
        gateway and mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility
        anchor switching that go beyond what has been specified, for
        example, in RFC 6097, 6463, and 5142. Traffic steering
        associated with the anchor switch is also in-scope if deemed
        appropriate.

      o Forwarding path and signaling management: the function
        that handles mobility management signaling interacts with the
        DMM network elements for managing the forwarding state
        associated with a mobile node's IP traffic.  These two functions
        may or may not be collocated. Furthermore, the forwarding state
        may also be distributed into multiple network elements instead
        of a single network element (e.g., anchor).  Protocol extensions
        or new protocols will be specified to allow the above mentioned
        forwarding path and signalling management.

      o Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes:
        define solutions that allow, for example, mobile nodes to select
        either a care-of address or a home address depending on an
        application' mobility needs. In order to enable this
        functionality, the network-side control functions and other
        networking nodes must also be able to exchange appropriate
        control information, as well as to the mobile nodes and their
        applications.

The working group may decide to extend the current milestones based on
the new information and knowledge gained during working on other
documents listed in the initial milestones. Possible new documents and
milestones must still fit into the overall DMM charter scope as outlined
above. 

Milestones:
  Feb 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' as a working group
document.
  Feb 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a
working group document.
  May 2015 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network
nodes' as a working group document(s).
  Nov 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' submitted to the IESG.
  Nov 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' submitted
to the IESG.
  Feb 2016 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network
nodes' submitted to the IESG.

The IESG | 20 Oct 18:35 2014
Picon

WG Action: Rechartered Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)

The Distributed Mobility Management (dmm) working group in the Internet
Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information please
contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.

Distributed Mobility Management (dmm)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Active WG

Chairs:
  Dapeng Liu <liudapeng@...>
  Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@...>

Assigned Area Director:
  Brian Haberman <brian@...>

Mailing list
  Address: dmm@...
  To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
  Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm

Charter:

Mobility management solutions lie at the center of the wireless Internet
and enable mobile devices to partake in IP networks anytime and
anywhere. The IETF Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group
(WG) specifies solutions for IP networks so that traffic between mobile
and correspondent nodes can take an optimal route. DMM solutions aim for
transparency above the IP layer, including maintenance of active
transport level sessions when mobile hosts or mobile networks change
their point of attachment to the Internet.

Wireless network deployments have traditionally relied on hierarchical
schemes that often lead to centralized deployment models, where a small
number of mobility anchors manage both mobility and reachability for a
mobile node. The DMM WG will consider the latest developments in mobile
networking research and operational practice (i.e. flattening network
architectures, the impact of virtualization, new deployment needs as
wireless access technologies evolve in the coming years) and will
describe how distributed mobility management addresses the new needs in
this area better than previously standardized solutions.

A topic of particular focus will be mobility anchoring in this new
context, and the DMM working group is chartered to work on
maintenance-oriented extensions of the Mobile IPv6 protocol family (RFC
5213, RFC 5844, RFC 5555, RFC 5568, and RFC 6275) as well as new
approaches which capitalize on other protocols specified by the IETF.
For example, mobility management in a limited area, such as within an
autonomous system, is not strictly limited to mentioned IP mobility
protocols but can be any existing or a new protocol solution enabling
the movement of a mobile node such as routing protocols. When extending
protocols that are not based on Mobile IP, DMM solutions will have to be
reviewed by the corresponding WGs.

IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile host/router and the
access networks. DMM solutions are primarily targeted at IPv6
deployments and are not required to support IPv4, in particular for the
case where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. DMM solutions
must maintain backward compatibility:  If the network or the mobile
host/router does not support the distributed mobility management
protocol that should not prevent the mobile host/router gaining basic
access (i.e., nomadic) to the network.

Contrary to earlier IP mobility protocols, mobility management signaling
paths and end-user traffic forwarding paths may differ. Further,
mobility-related functions may be located in separate network nodes. DMM
solutions should not distinguish between physical or virtualized
networking functions. Whenever applicable, clarifications and additional
features/capabilities for specific networking function deployment
models, e.g. in virtualized environments, are in-scope and encouraged.
Solutions may also specify the selection between the care-of addresses
and home address(es)/prefix(es) for different application use cases.

The working group will produce one or more documents on the following
work item topics.

      o Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
        describe the target high-level network architectures and
        deployment models where distributed mobility management
        protocol solutions would apply.

      o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a
        gateway and mobility anchor assignment and mid-session mobility
        anchor switching that go beyond what has been specified, for
        example, in RFC 6097, 6463, and 5142. Traffic steering
        associated with the anchor switch is also in-scope if deemed
        appropriate.

      o Forwarding path and signaling management: the function
        that handles mobility management signaling interacts with the
        DMM network elements for managing the forwarding state
        associated with a mobile node's IP traffic.  These two functions
        may or may not be collocated. Furthermore, the forwarding state
        may also be distributed into multiple network elements instead
        of a single network element (e.g., anchor).  Protocol extensions
        or new protocols will be specified to allow the above mentioned
        forwarding path and signalling management.

      o Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes:
        define solutions that allow, for example, mobile nodes to select
        either a care-of address or a home address depending on an
        application' mobility needs. In order to enable this
        functionality, the network-side control functions and other
        networking nodes must also be able to exchange appropriate
        control information, as well as to the mobile nodes and their
        applications.

The working group may decide to extend the current milestones based on
the new information and knowledge gained during working on other
documents listed in the initial milestones. Possible new documents and
milestones must still fit into the overall DMM charter scope as outlined
above. 

Milestones:
  Feb 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' as a working group
document.
  Feb 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a
working group document.
  May 2015 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network
nodes' as a working group document(s).
  Nov 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' submitted to the IESG.
  Nov 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' submitted
to the IESG.
  Feb 2016 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network
nodes' submitted to the IESG.
h chan | 20 Oct 04:56 2014

enhanced anchor description

The following is an attempt to describe anchor (for dmm) for discussion.

 

Different proposed dmm solutions have used anchor.

 

The functions of an anchor common to these solutions are:

(1) advertise prefix/address of the MN

(2) allocate prefix/address of the MN

 

The functions used in some proposed dmm solutions but are not common to all of them are:

(1) packets to/from the MN traverse through.

Note: with multiple anchors using anycast address, a packet may or may not traverse any one of the anchors.

Note: with route optimization in the host-based MIP, the packet does not traverse the anchor any more. Yet the anchor does perform the above functions.

(2) indirection, e.g., tunneling

(3) information, e.g., binding HoA and CoA

(4) sends route update, e.g., using BGP

 

Methods to provide mobility support using anchor:

(1) indirection

(2) update routing tables

 

H Anthony Chan

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Gmane