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

[jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 13, 2011, at 11:30 AM, liu dapeng wrote:

> 2011/11/7, jouni korhonen <[e-mail]>om>:
>> 
>> 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.

I understand this. However, the day any DMM solution hits the market can we assume that IPv4 is the protocol those new subscribers & mobiles are then mainly using? Given the minimum 2-3 year window anything penetrates the mass market we manage to define here, I hope IPv6 will have more significant role, for example, in cellular systems.

- Jouni

> 
> 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]>om>, <[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