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

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

Pierrick,

On Nov 4, 2011, at 11:28 AM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Also, I think we ought not only consider just mobility enhancement. More
>> efficient use of CoA(s) for direct/local/non-tunneled communication along
>> with existing mobility solutions should be in scope as well.
>> 
> 
> Actually, this is the idea behind dynamic mobility management described in the charter: use the CoA for IP flow which does not require mobility support. We are inline.
> 
> Pierrick

Nit picking and a bit of intentional teasing ;) Above is currently about a half.. one clear statement in the charter proposal is "the distribution of mobility anchors to achieve a more flat design".  The other clear statement is "the dynamic activation/deactivation of mobility protocol support as an enabler". However to use CoA(s) or any address you get locally falls greatly into the source address selection issues, which is not really about mobility per se. You don't necessarily even need distributed mobility anchors to facilitate that. Of course, there are vast amount possible solution approaches in this space.

- Jouni