Minutes for DMM at interim-2014-dmm-3

Meeting Minutes Distributed Mobility Management (dmm) WG
Title Minutes for DMM at interim-2014-dmm-3
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2014-10-07

Meeting Minutes

> DMM Interim Meeting Telco Agenda @ 7-Oct-2014

Present: Sri Gundavelli,
         Fred Templing,
         Jouni Korhonen (chair),
         Anthony Chan,
         Alper Yegin,
         Conny Larsson,
         Charlie Perkins (note taker),
         Marco Liebsch,
         Danny Moses,
         Pierrick Seite,
         Georgios Karagiannis,
         Carlos J. Bernardos

> 17:00-18:30 EEST Tuesday 7-Oct-2014
>     7:00am Pacific time
> ===========================================
> 17:00 - 17:10, Preliminaries (10 minutes)
> ----------------------------------------
>   Note Well
>   Note Takers
>   Agenda bash
>   Row call

Note Well is presented to the conferees


> 17:10 - 17:30 Working procedures & work split continues (20 minutes)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Continuation of the IETF#90 and interim #2 work split discussion.
>    o The remaining work item on deployment models.

Jouni: the current split seems to be progressing, even though
       there is some disagreement.

Jouni: Sri volunteered and will take over leading the deployment models
       and architectures work item.

> 17:30 - 17:45 BGP-based distributed mobility management approach (15 minutes)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   o Fred Templin

Aero virtual link makes all servers, clients, and relays into one-hop neighbors.
Each of them have a unique link-local address.  Link-local works because the
entire Aero Virtual Link is an tunneled overlay.

Shows AERO demo.  Shows adding a route and that the new route shows up at the
AERO relays.

Shows BGP neighbor state (using Quagga)

Has separate demo to show how mobility works and route optimization.

Center router represents the entire enterprise network...

Question about how centralized link-local address management versus the
needs of distributed mobility management.

Mobile IP is about the home agent managing mobility for MIP clients.
AERO is about mobile router wandering away from its home network.

In the demo diagram, n6 and n7 would be the mobile routers.

Alper: there's a top part running BGP.  The bottom part is running PMIP.

Fred: let's put mobility aside.  Discussion about how nodes move.  Going
	through localized mobility events, get reported only to the server.
	The relay using BGP for less localized events.

Alper: So it's like a hierarchical with BGP over the localized mobility.

Anthony: Please explain the mobility again -- there seems to be two types.

Fred: Consider the first kind of mobility. The AERO clients get prefixes,
	so they are mobile routers.  It uses DHCP Request as the mobility
	signal.  In AERO, all servers have identical prefixes.  Each server
	is a DHCP server, using the same prefix database.  They can
	delegate prefixes.

Charlie: a comparison is really needed.  DHCP Request seems to serve as
	the mobility signal.  The architecture seems to be analogous to

Fred: O.K.  Will try to put a comparison on the mailing list.

Sri: AERO should be compared also against the gap analysis.

Jouni: Thanks -- we don't often see presentations that include running code.

> 17:45 - 18:30 Work items progress (45 minutes)
> ----------------------------------------------
>   o Alper
>   o Anthony
>   o Marco

Jouni: For the rest of time, we can hear from the project teams.

Alper: Right now setting up the first kickoff call.  Please put the preferred

Anthony: Setting up first conference call.  How to build the anchor, what is
	the anchor actually doing.

Marco: Forwarding Path & Signaling Management.  Tried to consider the
	technology that we have in the context of the charter bullet.

	Shows slide...
	Specification of C-/D- reference interface and semantics
	== generic description of protocol interface preferred

Alper: ongoing discussions where?
	== mapping of generic description to concrete protocol
		-- OpenFlow, Netconf, BGP, ReST, XML, vendor-specific
	== Target initial draft in October, or multiple drafts
	== Converged on technical scope, functional reference architecture

Marco: referring to discussions in IETF meeting, convergence between more
	than one person, not WG consensus

Alper: Could there be a reduction to a specific protocol to give an
	example about the general ideas?

Marco: People might have different preferences about which particular
	example to pick?

Alper: How about using Mobile IP as an example?

Marco: Mobile IP doesn't have separation between Control and Data plane

Sri: Perhaps there could be an example section.

Charlie: We have spent a long time on the requirements, gap analysis, and
	charter, and now it seems that there are four subgroups racing to
	get some results.

Fred: Agreed...

Alper: There are self-contained proposals like AERO that ought to also
	be considered according to the breakdown.

Charlie: Hope that all teams use the DMM mailing list for discussion.

>   AOB if the time allowes.

Meeting adjourned at 8:26am Pacific time, 6:26pm EEST.