Charles E. Perkins | 1 Aug 20:28 2011
Picon
Picon

[MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement


Hello folks,

At IETF 81, LISP for mobile devices was presented.
While I am not yet convinced about the specific
solution presented, I started to look at LISP as
a possible component of an overall DMM solution.

LISP has a website:
http://www.lisp4.net

For people who are unfamiliar, this issue of IPJ
has a tutorial article about LISP:
http://www.lisp4.net/docs/ipj_11-1.pdf

The LISP draft for mobile nodes is accessible here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-meyer-lisp-mn/

Comments?  I think that LISP should be added to the
comparison matrix in my draft with Dapeng Liu.
Would that be helpful?

Regards,
Charlie P.
Seok-Joo Koh | 2 Aug 01:50 2011
Picon

Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement

Dear Charles,

I think the LISP can also be considered as a promising candidate
in the design of DMM solutions. Several works are being progressed
to use or extend the LISP for mobility support, which inlcude LISP-MN draft
and many research papers. Actually, I am also considering how to extend
the LISP scheme in the DMM perspective.

LISP is a network-based ID-LOC separation scheme and thus it may give some
advantages for effective mobility support. On the other hand, it is noted that
the current version of LISP and LISP-MN may need to be more enhanced
in terms of scalability in the mobile environment. For example, one concern of LISP
is that the LISP EIDs may not be aggregated anymore in the mobile networks, since
each mobile node will have its own distinctive EIDs that do not conform the concerned mobile domain.
This may decrease the scaling benefits of original LISP.
We may need to design a new enhanced EID structure to be used for mobile environment.
Nontheless, it is worthwhile to consider LISP as a promisng candidate in the disign of DMM, I think.

By the way, as I already said in this IETF DMM ad hoc meeting, the urgent action item of DMM is
to make one or more introductory I-Ds with WG consensus, which may include
the problem statements and requirements for DMM, use cases/scenarios, and comparison matrix, etc.

Regards,

*************************
Seok-Joo Koh
http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/
*************************

----- Original Message ----- 
(Continue reading)

Sri Gundavelli | 2 Aug 05:13 2011
Picon

Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement

Hi Charlie,

I agree, we have to look at other approaches and bring any value added
features to MIPv6/PMIPv6 protocols that its missing today. But, I've to say,
I'm still trying to understand the DMM problem statement and what DMM should
translate to:

- Is it about optimized routing path ? This is very subjective and the
requirement may vary based on the use-case. Very much depends on the
placement of the anchor point. No solution on the table can ever solve this,
unless we assume the target site where the CN is located, or the ISP above
is providing some new location functions. This new location function, sure,
can be a proxy home agent at the global internet level too, for the argument
sake, providing direct path to the access network where the MN is currently
attached. We also have talked some time back on the Global HAHA, as an
approach of session re-anchoring.

- Is it about moving from a centralized one box model to more distributed
zillion box model ? This sounds very promising on the paper. But, as we
discussed during the DMM BOF, rolling out a zillion pizza box type box
anchors sounds very cool. Sure, but we bring back ten-fold complexity in the
form of building distributed charging, Legal Intercept, DPI, Inline
services, hotlining, high-availability ...etc etc, which are now part of
that one central anchor box. It is to be noted, we have not seen a true
distributed service deployed in the internet today, other than DNS.  But, I
agree, if this about building a true internet, who the heck cares about all
of these functions, in the true spirit.

Either way, I assumed any of the new solution will be bound by the following
parameters:
(Continue reading)

Sri Gundavelli | 2 Aug 05:22 2011
Picon

Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement

With respect to the solutions, there are multiple approaches that are on the
table. To me, to achieve a flat distributed model, we need:

- the ability to select a mobility anchor closer to the access network where
the mobile node is attached. 3GPP Rel-10 has done quite a few enhancements
on the aspects of gateway selection. Using the parameters eNB, APN, RNC-ID,
BSC-ID, ...etc

- the ability to re-anchor a session, or create a new session on a new
anchor closer to the new attachment point

- the ability to allow the mobile node to identify the assigned IP address
properties, distinguish between an address assigned in the previous access
network, from an address assigned in the current access network, so it can
continue to use the new address for new sessions and phase out the older
address/mobility session on the previous anchor over a period of time. In
other words, enhancing the SAS rules with mobility awareness will give the
needed session re-anchoring capabilities

This approach gives me the gateway selection closer to the access network
where the mobile node is attached and the needed optimized routing path. So,
I'm trying to understand what are the expectation from the DMM efforts,
beyond this.

Sri

On 8/1/11 8:13 PM, "Sri Gundavelli" <sgundave <at> cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Charlie,
> 
(Continue reading)

Charles E. Perkins | 2 Aug 07:05 2011
Picon
Picon

[MEXT] Reply from Dino [Re: LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement]


Hello folks,

Dino has replied to Seok-Joo Koh's message, but he is not on
the [mext] mailing list, so I am forwarding his reply.

Regards,
Charlie P.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 19:01:50 -0700
From: Dino Farinacci <dino <at> cisco.com>
To: Seok-Joo Koh <sjkoh <at> knu.ac.kr>
CC: Charles E. Perkins <charles.perkins <at> earthlink.net>, mext <mext <at> ietf.org>

> Dear Charles,
>
> I think the LISP can also be considered as a promising candidate
> in the design of DMM solutions. Several works are being progressed
> to use or extend the LISP for mobility support, which inlcude LISP-MN draft
> and many research papers. Actually, I am also considering how to extend
> the LISP scheme in the DMM perspective.
>
> LISP is a network-based ID-LOC separation scheme and thus it may give some
> advantages for effective mobility support. On the other hand, it is noted that
> the current version of LISP and LISP-MN may need to be more enhanced
> in terms of scalability in the mobile environment. For example, one concern of LISP
> is that the LISP EIDs may not be aggregated anymore in the mobile networks, since
> each mobile node will have its own distinctive EIDs that do not conform the concerned mobile domain.
(Continue reading)

Alexandru Petrescu | 2 Aug 13:28 2011
Picon

Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement

Le 01/08/2011 20:28, Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
>
> Hello folks,
>
> At IETF 81, LISP for mobile devices was presented.

In Mobopts?

Alex

> While I am not yet convinced about the specific
> solution presented, I started to look at LISP as
> a possible component of an overall DMM solution.
>
> LISP has a website:
> http://www.lisp4.net
>
> For people who are unfamiliar, this issue of IPJ
> has a tutorial article about LISP:
> http://www.lisp4.net/docs/ipj_11-1.pdf
>
> The LISP draft for mobile nodes is accessible here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-meyer-lisp-mn/
>
> Comments? I think that LISP should be added to the
> comparison matrix in my draft with Dapeng Liu.
> Would that be helpful?
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
(Continue reading)

Alexandru Petrescu | 2 Aug 13:28 2011
Picon

Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement

Le 02/08/2011 01:50, Seok-Joo Koh a écrit :
> Dear Charles,
>
> I think the LISP can also be considered as a promising candidate
> in the design of DMM solutions. Several works are being progressed
> to use or extend the LISP for mobility support, which inlcude LISP-MN draft
> and many research papers. Actually, I am also considering how to extend
> the LISP scheme in the DMM perspective.
>
> LISP is a network-based ID-LOC separation scheme and thus it may give some
> advantages for effective mobility support. On the other hand, it is
> noted that
> the current version of LISP and LISP-MN may need to be more enhanced
> in terms of scalability in the mobile environment. For example, one
> concern of LISP
> is that the LISP EIDs may not be aggregated anymore in the mobile
> networks, since
> each mobile node will have its own distinctive EIDs that do not conform
> the concerned mobile domain.
> This may decrease the scaling benefits of original LISP.
> We may need to design a new enhanced EID structure to be used for mobile
> environment.
> Nontheless, it is worthwhile to consider LISP as a promisng candidate in
> the disign of DMM, I think.
>
> By the way, as I already said in this IETF DMM ad hoc meeting,

Sorry, which IETF DMM ad hoc meeting?

Alex
(Continue reading)

Alexandru Petrescu | 2 Aug 13:29 2011
Picon

Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement

Le 02/08/2011 05:13, Sri Gundavelli a écrit :
> Hi Charlie,
>
> I agree, we have to look at other approaches and bring any value added
> features to MIPv6/PMIPv6 protocols that its missing today. But, I've to say,
> I'm still trying to understand the DMM problem statement and what DMM should
> translate to:
>
> - Is it about optimized routing path ? This is very subjective and the
> requirement may vary based on the use-case. Very much depends on the
> placement of the anchor point. No solution on the table can ever solve this,
> unless we assume the target site where the CN is located, or the ISP above
> is providing some new location functions. This new location function, sure,
> can be a proxy home agent at the global internet level too, for the argument
> sake, providing direct path to the access network where the MN is currently
> attached. We also have talked some time back on the Global HAHA, as an
> approach of session re-anchoring.
>
> - Is it about moving from a centralized one box model to more distributed
> zillion box model ? This sounds very promising on the paper. But, as we
> discussed during the DMM BOF, rolling out a zillion pizza box type box
> anchors sounds very cool. Sure, but we bring back ten-fold complexity in the
> form of building distributed charging, Legal Intercept, DPI, Inline
> services, hotlining, high-availability ...etc etc, which are now part of
> that one central anchor box. It is to be noted, we have not seen a true
> distributed service deployed in the internet today, other than DNS.  But, I
> agree, if this about building a true internet, who the heck cares about all
> of these functions, in the true spirit.
>
> Either way, I assumed any of the new solution will be bound by the following
(Continue reading)

Alexandru Petrescu | 2 Aug 13:42 2011
Picon

[MEXT] my handwritten minutes about the "not MEXT" meeting IETF81

This is unofficial, and is my sentiment about this meeting, which, as
all sentiments, may be not right.

MEXT Discussion Group met on July 27th, 2011, in room 303ABC of
Hilton, in Québec, Canada, during the IETF 81 meeting, as announced in
the attached email.

Approximately 21-27 people were in the room, varying in time.

It was led by Charles Perkins and Raj Patil.  There was projector and
slides.

CP humurously named this the "not MEXT WG" meeting, laughs.

CP invited to post to MEXT email list (and no longer use the DMM
email list dmm <at> ietf.org) and he gave reasonable argument for that.

Requirements discussion happened.

Sri on Source Address Selection and Policy Table DHCP.

Antony Chan on problem statement for dynamic mobility mgmt.

Raj Patil on reasons for DMM: not backhauling, latency, inefficient
routing, scalability and cost.

Dapeng Liu (spelling?) of ZTE saying DMM based on PMIP is different than
LR PMIP in that order of LMA and MAG.

Carlos on PMIP-DMM will present in Mobopts RG.
(Continue reading)

Romain KUNTZ | 2 Aug 23:09 2011

Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement

Hello,

I fail to see how LISP would fall in the MEXT charter item, which concentrates on MIPv6-based DMM solution
('Operational considerations for distributed use of Mobile IPv6'). If LISP is foreseen as a potential
solution for distributed mobility management, that should probably be discussed in the Network WG,
where LISP and LISP MN are discussed.

Regards,
Romain

On Aug 1, 2011, at 16:50, Seok-Joo Koh wrote:

> Dear Charles,
> 
> I think the LISP can also be considered as a promising candidate
> in the design of DMM solutions. Several works are being progressed
> to use or extend the LISP for mobility support, which inlcude LISP-MN draft
> and many research papers. Actually, I am also considering how to extend
> the LISP scheme in the DMM perspective.
> 
> LISP is a network-based ID-LOC separation scheme and thus it may give some
> advantages for effective mobility support. On the other hand, it is noted that
> the current version of LISP and LISP-MN may need to be more enhanced
> in terms of scalability in the mobile environment. For example, one concern of LISP
> is that the LISP EIDs may not be aggregated anymore in the mobile networks, since
> each mobile node will have its own distinctive EIDs that do not conform the concerned mobile domain.
> This may decrease the scaling benefits of original LISP.
> We may need to design a new enhanced EID structure to be used for mobile environment.
> Nontheless, it is worthwhile to consider LISP as a promisng candidate in the disign of DMM, I think.
> 
(Continue reading)


Gmane