Document Action: 'Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and gap analysis' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-09.txt)

The IESG <> Fri, 07 November 2014 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E34F1AD390; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 09:44:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gicv4hPQoiEw; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 09:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D37E1AD3AF; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 09:44:33 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Document Action: 'Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and gap analysis' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-09.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.7.2.p1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 09:44:33 -0800
Cc: dmm chair <>, dmm mailing list <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 17:44:37 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Distributed Mobility Management: Current practices and gap analysis'
  (draft-ietf-dmm-best-practices-gap-analysis-09.txt) as Informational

This document is the product of the Distributed Mobility Management
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ted Lemon.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

   The present document analyzes deployment practices of existing IP
   Mobility protocols in a distributed mobility management environment.
   The analyzed IP level (i.e., layer 3) mobility protocols include those
   developed by IETF and also those developed by other SDOs that have
   been widely deployed. Due the plurality of different mobility enabling 
   protocol and solutions, the analysis has been intentionally limited to
   IP level (i.e., layer 3) protocol that typically are based on some sort of
   tunneling solution. The document then identifies existing limitations when
   compared to the distributed mobility management requirements defined in
   draft-ietf-dmm-requirements for a distributed mobility management solution.

   On the existing IP mobility enabling architectures (outside mobile VPNs or
   IETF defined IP mobility solutions), the document considers only the 3GPP 
   GPRS/EPS system and service provider Wi-Fi due their dominant positions
   in the market place.

Working Group Summary

   The document creation was not entirely smooth as seen from the timeline.
   There are several aspects in the existing deployments making use of IP
   mobility (such as the 3GPP GPRS/EPS) that already today include many
   enhancements on the deployment & product feature level that can be seen
   as a step towards distributed mobility management. The line between what
   is a gap and what can be achieved with today's tools was not always exactly
   clear. However, the WG has an agreement on the gaps described in this
   document and the fact that the most prevalent solutions that exist are not
   defined in IETF and are specific to certain system architectures.

Document Quality

   There are no implementations of this document, since it only
   presents an analysis of existing protocols and deployments to
   what is intended to be achieved with distributed mobility management.

   The document has received multiple thorough reviews in the WG.


   Jouni Korhonen ( is the document shepherd.
   Brian Haberman ( is the AD.