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

Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 09 January 2012 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 7D3AF11E80AD for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:21:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 QgH0H4do8+xa for <mext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:21:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A14711E80AB for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:21:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by laah2 with SMTP id h2so1791654laa.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:21:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=3RaVI9p4yC6y2Jy+llCliU88XRPJXGzDP4uHepC8a1I=; b=skprK8/dwzyJjyBi1pCI6aGAJ+peip1xHrLyhFoelFsppJOTP5sMasowgDxah91S4d Ejl0Oc2q1U9jQ/RZNR4KOTRZ0SC6+pnmhgwDOuk+G6Q3YjC72i8zCCICMHlSUkelvKJl 05VyN6lxvyxMMLv4d6aZ68FPxMc0FZddFUFcQ=
Received: by 10.152.134.10 with SMTP id pg10mr7416578lab.3.1326133274125; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [188.117.15.110] ([188.117.15.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sv10sm31552828lab.14.2012.01.09.10.21.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C79361F2B@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:21:10 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <5792F470-2A8E-40B4-9B65-E847219C27E8@gmail.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> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C79361F2B@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
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 18:21:31 -0000

Fred,


On Jan 9, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:

> 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.
> 

In the above "solution" being a solution for distributed mobility
management.

Hope that clarifies.

- Jouni


> 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
>>