IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00

<pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com> Wed, 06 July 2011 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.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 472FA21F85A7 for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 06:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nisnISn38kOv for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 06:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8715921F8593 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 06:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9EE4095800D; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:44:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97732958008; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:44:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.56]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:36:28 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:36:27 +0200
Message-ID: <843DA8228A1BA74CA31FB4E111A5C46201CC884B@ftrdmel0.rd.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <1309902137.88713.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00
Thread-Index: Acw7XKPNIRaSVNutQ7KdxLWv8GXfOgAhGWTw
References: <CA30D730.B544%jouni.korhonen@nsn.com><4E0B6C3C.5030900@computer.org><44247DA2-8CD5-4C1F-96AC-3B6720268C52@us.toyota-itc.com><1309446892.22958.YahooMailRC@web111407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4BB26130-DEEF-4A97-9720-DE8AED8D2C96@us.toyota-itc.com><BANLkTi=QJ=NPx=Aq3=fgDc=5Vhn2UGwDng@mail.gmail.com> <1309902137.88713.YahooMailRC@web111401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
From: <pierrick.seite@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: <sarikaya@ieee.org>, <rkuntz@us.toyota-itc.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2011 13:36:28.0263 (UTC) FILETIME=[B551F770:01CC3BE1]
Cc: mext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00
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: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:36:36 -0000

Hi,

DMA is a generic concept of distribution of mobility anchors and dynamic activation of mobility signalling. It is illustrated with PMIP but can also be applied to MIP/FMIP. I agree it should be clarified with a specific DMA-mip draft...

Pierrick

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> Behcet Sarikaya
> Envoyé : mardi 5 juillet 2011 23:42
> À : Romain KUNTZ
> Cc : mext@ietf.org
> Objet : [MEXT] draft-kuntz-dmm-summary-00
> 
> Hi Romain,
>   A quick review of your draft.
> On HMIPv6, I agree with your observations.
> I think that DMA and DLMA are PMIPv6 dmm solutions and so maybe not so
> interesting for Mext.
> ON DMI,it is a little archaic and also does not address all issues of DMM.
> It
> just gives some good ideas, I think.
> 
> You mentioned separation of control and data planes which is from
> yokota-dmm-scenario. This is a tough requirement to satisfy within MIPv6
> domain.
> I think that one more requirement of no extensions to MIPv6 has been
> mentioned
> in Beijing meeting. So the drafts can be measured on how close they come
> to this
> requirement.
> 
> Lastly, you have not covered newer drafts like draft-sarikaya-mext-
> multicastdmm.
> 
> It would be more productive to review the dmm solution drafts on mext list,
> as
> Julien mentioned.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email