Re: [RAM] ViP: Anycast ITRs in the DFZ & mobile tunnels

["Ved Kafle" <kafle at nict.go.jp>]

> 
> Robin,
> 
> is it correct to say that ViP anchors an access (or edge) network's
> prefix at the V-router somewhere within the DFZ?
> 
> In this case, I would see a difference between ViP and LISP 
> in terms of
> responsibilities:
> 
> - In ViP, it is the responsibility of the destination access network
>   to set up (or subscribe to) the anchor router for its prefix.
> 
> - LISP relies on a router in (or at the border of) the source access
>   network to perform this functionality.
> 
> This ViP concept reminds me of Mobile IP (v4 or v6), where a 
> mobile host
> anchors its home network prefix with a home agent, the 
> location of which
> is independent of the peer that the mobile host communicates 
> with.  Both
> ViP and Mobile IP use tunneling between the anchor and the 
> destination.
> 
> In fact, ViP is a proposal for network mobility.  It enables an access
> network to change ISPs (which is nothing else but a topological
> "movement") without losing reachability via the original prefix.

To me, the ViP approach looks similar to the network mobility (nemo) support
approach being discussed in the IETF nemo WG. In nemo, the mobile router's
home agent advertises the mobile network prefix such that the packets sent
by a correspondent node to an address belonging to the nemo prefix go to the
home network of the moible network, where the home agent tunnels them to the
current location of the mobile router. The mobile router decapsulates and
forwards the packets to the addressed node.

Analogy:
(1) ViP routers are similar to the mobile network home agents, except that
the home agents are confined to home networks where as Vip routers may be
distributed in the Internet. If we suppose that home agents can be
distributed like ViP routers, then these two apporaches are exactly the
same. 
(2) ViP's ETRs are similar to nemo mobile routers, which update ViP routers
(home agent) with the tunnel-end addresses. 
(3) In nemo, a bidirectional tunnel is set up to avoid packet filtering at
border routers. Whereas in ViP, it is assumed that the BRs forward packets
with ViP-mapped addresses. 

There are some well known problems associated with such achor point-based
approaches, such as increased packet delivery delay, non-optimal routing,
tunneling overhead, possibilities of single point of faiture, etc. To avoid
these problems, route optimization mechanisms are being investigated in the
nemo WG. Shouldn't we look for the ID-loc split solutions that avoid such
problems as much as possible?

Ved

> 
> Interesting...
> 
> - Christian
> 
> 



_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram