Re: [netext] about the mMAG draft, and network mobility for PMIP

Hi Alex,

Thanks for  your comment.
Please see [Seil] inline.

Regards,
Seil

-----Original Message-----
From: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 10:02 PM
To: netext@ietf.org
Subject: [netext] about the mMAG draft, and network mobility for PMIP

I wanted to say at the mic.

I read this mMAG draft.  I also read the netext wg ig pmip prefix
delegation.  Additioally, I co-authored another draft about pmip and network
mobility.

I think overall we may have an issue here about the lack of a problemm
statement draft for pmip network mobility.  I do not consider it blocking
but it does backfire a bit here, if I can say so.

One interesting aspect of mMAG (other than that it can work) is that it does
not use DHCP at all.  You Raj asked which operator would be interested in
this mMAG concept - well any which does not implement DHCP-PD today, and
there are many I think.

[Seil] As I told after the meeting, PMIPv6 specified stateless IP address
configuration, right? And I believe we don't need to limit IP address
configuration method with DHCP only in network mobility, even on business
model. Main issue, in operator perspective, would not be the use of DHCP or
not but how to arrange NEMO concept aligned with existing PMIPv6 protocol.

One differentiating advantageous aspect in the netext wg item pmip prefix
delegation is that it delegates a v6 as well as a v4 prefix.  But it has the
inconvenient of requiring mandatorily the GRE encapsulation (other kind sof
encapsulaiton exist as well.

Alex

_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
netext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext