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

[liu dapeng <[e-mail]>]

2011/11/7, jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>:
>
> On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am confused about all these very high level, intelligent looking
>> comments, and I must say I am fed up with them :-).
>>
>> Non-tunneled communications is already there in DMM. You connect to the
>> nearest HA and all new communications is non-tunneled.
>>
>> Do we agree that we should differentiate client-based and network based
>> protocols and discuss them in different places? or even there is no issue
>> for one.
>
>
> IMHO I see no reason to focus only on client-based or network-based
> solutions. FWIW the DMM solution space:
>
> o is incremental to an existing IETF mobility protocol, be that client-,
>   network- or even transport-based.
> o or alternatively may not depend on a specific mobility protocol at all
>   i.e. non-anchored solution is also in scope.
> o solution is backward compatible in a sense that if a host or a network
>   does not support DMM, nothing breaks.
> o focuses on IPv6 because anything IPv4 is just NAT-games.

I have concern about only focuse on IPv6. IPv4 is still widely used
today, we have to consider that.

regards,
Dapeng

> - Jouni
>
>>
>> I think this is what we should decide now.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:19 AM, jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 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
>> > <[e-mail]> 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" <[e-mail]>
>> >> Organization: Wichorus Inc.
>> >> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 10:49:21 -0700
>> >> To: Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
>> >> Cc: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
>> >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] the future of the MEXT working group
>> >>
>> >>> Hello folks,
>> >>>
>> >>> For several years now, I have been studying 4G wireless
>>
>> [snap]
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>


-- 

------
Best Regards,
Dapeng Liu