[multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover + transient binding
"Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de> Mon, 30 July 2012 21:36 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=551f805bc=schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC99211E812C for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 4p0BnKN5bI2j for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de (mx6.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.6.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083D611E80DE for <multimob@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.30.74]) by mail6.is.haw-hamburg.de with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 30 Jul 2012 23:36:28 +0200
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BEC109E124 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:36:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 28440-08 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:36:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [130.129.83.194] (dhcp-53c2.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.83.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgate.informatik.haw-hamburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F825105A868 for <multimob@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:36:26 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5016FE59.7090800@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:36:25 -0700
From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "multimob@ietf.org" <multimob@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at informatik.haw-hamburg.de
Subject: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover + transient binding
X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast Mobility <multimob.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob>
List-Post: <mailto:multimob@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:36:39 -0000
Hi, as discussed today in the meeting, the following question was raised: draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover transfers context from pMAG via LMA to nMAG - which in concept corresponds to the *Transient*Binding* in unicast RFC 6058 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6058. draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover does not even reference RFC 6058 ... but probably should closely stick to the unicast solution. So the question is about protocol systematics: Do we want unicast and multicast protocol operations remain incompatible? Cheers, Thomas -- Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt ° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 ° ° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany ° ° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 ° ° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °
- [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-fast-handover + tr… Thomas C. Schmidt