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

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jouni, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jouni korhonen [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:44 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: [e-mail] Laganier; [e-mail]
> 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
> > [e-mail]
> 
> 
> 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
[e-mail]

> - Jouni
>