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

[Jouni <[e-mail]>]

Fred,


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

> 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.
> 

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
> [e-mail]
> 
>> - Jouni
>>