Subject: Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-02.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:35:28 +0000

Hi all,

I have reviewed draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-02.txt:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-02.txt

Below you can see my initial comments:

Comment_1: Emphasize in Section 1 that the gaps (limitations) that are described in this draft are related to(depend on) the requirements that are specified by the DMM WG.

================

Comment_2: Section 4.1:
I miss two assumptions that in my opinion will be needed to be considered:

Assumption 5: Solutions should allow to select the entity (ingress to the DMM plane)  where the traffic redirection should start.

Please notice that in this way, an entity, which might not be the original (source) anchor point to redirect the traffic towards the target anchor point.
This is needed in order to optimize the data plane performance.

Assumption 6: The solution should be able to manage the period of time that the traffic redirection towards a target anchor point needs to be maintained.

Please notice that this assumption is needed, since redirection of traffic from an original anchor point to a new anchor  point cannot be maintained for ever.

======================

Comment_3: Please explain whether the solutions described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 support all the assumptions or a subset of the assumptions described in Section 4.1.

=============

Comment_4: In table 5.8 a table is given that shows the gaps (limitations) of the presented solutions. It is not clear, in the text, why solutions MIPv6 RO and HMIPv6 are able to support requirement REQ2: Transparency to Upper Layers”, while all the other solutions are not able to support this requirement.
Please elaborate on this point in Section 5.2.

=============

Comment_5: More solutions could be included in the gap related discussion. In particular in September 2012, I had proposed on the DMM mailing list a set of such solutions:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg00372.html

=========

Comment_6: I found some editorials. Some examples are:

Section 4.1, page 6, Assumption 3, please change from:
“.. Typically, the a connection ..”

INTO:

“.. Typically, the connection ..”

Section 4.2.1, page 12: please change from:
“There other host-based approaches ..”
INTO:
“There are other host-based approaches ..”

Best regards,
Georgios

________________________________
Van: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] namens Jouni Korhonen [[email-masked]]
Verzonden: donderdag 24 oktober 2013 9:54
To: [email-masked]
Onderwerp: Re: [DMM] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-02.txt

Folks,

Please review the latest revision of the gap analysis and
pay close attention to the conclusions (Section 5.8.) the
I-D draws. I'd like to remind you that this I-D is the
justification for the possible further work and rechartering.
This implies, the conclusions on gaps and identified new
work needed must be then found from this I-D.

The discussion has to start already before the meeting.

- Jouni (on behalf of the chairs)

On Oct 22, 2013, at 12:51 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Distributed Mobility Management Working Group of the IETF.
>
>        Title           : Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and gap analysis
>        Author(s)       : Dapeng Liu
>                          Juan Carlos Zuniga
>                          Pierrick Seite
>                          H Anthony Chan
>                          Carlos J. Bernardos
>        Filename        : draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-02.txt
>        Pages           : 26
>        Date            : 2013-10-21
>
> Abstract:
>   The present document analyses deplyment practices of existing
>   mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment.
>   It also identifies some limitations compared to the expected
>   functionality of a fully distributed mobility management system.  The
>   comparison is made taking into account the identified DMM
>   requirements.
>

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm