IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Fri, 04 November 2011 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A8E21F8B9A for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 01:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BjQU+1IkpGzp for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 01:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D452621F8B8E for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 01:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyg24 with SMTP id 24so2133028eyg.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=4Y39nNhJUdCt3FVZkwFLkVY5G4rt3s0WS8eQwyOJ1jY=; b=ektbPi4lziajPmalLgVLXqkkPWYTIB3/ZlEDoMtU4rq31/KE9UXfQNhZiDs6Tpu1Ir XMQG04xiM6F4jx2f6Njxs6Bn/znrRmy2/kpOm8i3KPbw5tVhykwsPR7fRkeuLuULJPxx ppLUhOwlvBTZYxxVimD0CjCtd/lu2M52mjPnw=
Received: by 10.213.102.5 with SMTP id e5mr140071ebo.44.1320394762247; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-27-53.ripemtg.ripe.net (dhcp-27-53.ripemtg.ripe.net. [193.0.27.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v3sm22945299eej.7.2011.11.04.01.19.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACvMsLG496pFVaVM0aJzt9W+=kwAwJjMNru4OO45aK66iDhhgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:19:16 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1672201A-C652-4204-99D9-3DE4D23D2BB2@gmail.com>
References: <4EB2D421.4030905@earthlink.net> <CAD9800F.1D0F9%hesham@elevatemobile.com> <CACvMsLG496pFVaVM0aJzt9W+=kwAwJjMNru4OO45aK66iDhhgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pete McCann <mccap@petoni.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:19:29 -0000

Pete,

On Nov 4, 2011, at 3:16 AM, Pete McCann wrote:

> A good architecture is made not only from deciding what to standardize but
> also from what not to standardize.

Exactly.

[snip]

> 
> Perhaps IETF could take LIPA as a starting point to design a cleaner
> mobility management solution.

What came out from a certain SDO as a "Local IP Access" did not turn out as the most elegant solution :) But I do agree that from the idea & initial use case point of view, it definitely is something to look at.. even as a basis for a cleaner design.

> It isn't clear to me that we should even start with tunnels as a basic building
> block.

I am along the same lines. See my earlier mail on the charter http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg04905.html

- Jouni



> 
> -Pete
> 
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> wrote:
>> Hi Charlie,
>> 
>> I agree completely with you on the problems with the current interfaces in
>> LTE, and in 3G before that.
>> I don't know what the best way to go about it would be. I say this because
>> many people on this list are aware of what's happening in LTE and
>> presumably have similar opinions about the complexity of their solutions,
>> but it's still there.
>> 
>> Hesham
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
>> Organization: Wichorus Inc.
>> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:49:21 -0700
>> To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
>> Cc: <jouni.korhonen@nsn.com>, <mext@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
>> 
>>> Hello folks,
>>> 
>>> For several years now, I have been studying 4G wireless

[snap]

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email