James Kempf wrote:
> NETLMM is only analgous to MIPv4 if you accept that
tunnels will
> always involve an IP address as an endpoint.
I see the analogy and the distinction.
> Suppose that the LMA is configured to use MPLS tunnels.
The routing
> then consists of mapping the mobile node's address to
an LSP. Then
> the packet is forwarded through the LSP to the other
endpoint.
The intermediary routers running MPLS and the ARs should
learn
dynamically which AR (the other endpoint) serves which
mobile, and
update the related LSP, in order for this forwarding to
work. I'm not
sure netlmm proposes this.
> If there are two possible routes for one mobile node
address, as is
> the case with multiple bindings, then there needs to be
some
> distinguishing characteristic in the packet by which
the LSA can
LSA is Link-State Advertisement of OSPF?
> determine which forwarding path to use, for example,
the DSCP.
DSCP is Differentiated Services Code-Point of MPLS+diffserv?
> The mobile node's address is not a distinguishing
characteristic,
> because it will be the same in every packet. The key
issue here is
> that MPLS separates out routing from forwarding at the
LMA*.
I think I get the MPLS concept of using labels, but I am not
sure
whether any modifications are necessary on MPLS and RSVP-TE
to support
netlmm.
Alex
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm ngnet.it
https://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
|