Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Mon, 09 January 2012 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 5851A11E807A for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:53:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 sjfAdANZwJHi for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:53:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB7621F8629 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id q09GrTSx029345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:53:32 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with SMTP id q09GqrIM024259 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:52:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-07.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.111]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q09Gqn1m024159 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.97]) by XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.111]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:52:48 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:52:47 -0800
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
Thread-Index: AczOu5OPg10ag1KlR0K6sHrokr5DvQAMtlGg
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C79361F2B@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <8CAD2158-A0AC-4767-9DDC-857536E26DC6@gmail.com> <CAKcc6Aeqj24Smyvv5VQV5Emtaj-16C=5bpqjyv=-Lt3Haj2B+A@mail.gmail.com> <91BED5F7-FEE9-435E-80F3-5BF01421EB3B@gmail.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C7930232C@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <48813412-2A2D-4611-8723-BCE1A548BD59@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <48813412-2A2D-4611-8723-BCE1A548BD59@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier" <julien.ietf@gmail.com>, "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
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: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:53:24 -0000

Hi Jouni, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:44 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: julien.ietf@gmail.com Laganier; mext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] The first proposal for the DMM charter
> 
> Fred,
> 
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 7:42 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >> 
> >> The protocol solutions should be based on existing IP mobility
> >> protocols, either host- or network-based, such as Mobile IPv6
> >> [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213, 5844] and NEMO 
> >> [RFC3963].
> > 
> > I don't understand the "should be based on existing IP
> > mobility protocols". IRON for example provides an
> > alternative mobility management solution which I believe
> > has significant advantages over other approaches:
> > 
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironbis-10
> > 
> > Thanks - Fred
> > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> 
> 
> I admit I have not followed much of the IRON work. However, the 
> overal idea is that if your solution needs specific bindings to
> existing mobility providing protocol(s), then your choices more
> or less are listed above (or some existing flavor/variation of
> those). If your solution does not depend on any specific mobility
> protocol i.e., does not require specification of protocol specific
> bindings, then you are free to deploy it on top of anything,
> including IRON.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to
say, but what I am trying to say is that IRON provides
an alternative mobility management scheme that does not
depend on any of the *MIP mechanisms and is, IMHO, a
better mobility management system. Hence, I recommend
a closer look at IRON:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-ironbis

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> - Jouni
>