[Netext] Scope of proposed work

Hi Vijay,

That's what I thought, too.
I couldn't find any explanation at the NetEXT charter.
I am more comfortable to say this explicitly in the charter.

regards,
ryuji

On 2009/04/08, at 18:08, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:

> Hi Ryuji,
>
> On 4/8/09 2:52 PM, "Ryuji Wakikawa" <ryuji.wakikawa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Raj,
>>
>> Thanks for this. I agree on what you said in your mail.
>> However, I want to ask one more clarification.
>>
>> I don't want to go to MIP6 vs PMIP6 here, but some of extensions
>> (multihoming, flow mobility,
>> LMA redirection aka HAswithc?) are already covered by MIP6 in MEXT.
>> When we need the similar features to PMIP,
>> will NetEXT solution inherit MIP6 and MIP6-based-extension as RFC5213
>> did?
>> One of goal of RFC5213 was to inherit MIP6 spec as much as possible.
>
> Re-using the solutions developed for MIPv6 is very much desirable. I  
> don't
> think MIPv6 and PMIPv6 will have different mechanisms for carrying  
> the flow
> filters in the BU or the PBU.
>
> Vijay
>
>>
>> PMIP specific issues can be solved anyway, but some of common issues
>> can be
>> solved with the similar extensions to MIP6 or with another extensions
>> to MIP6 extension.
>> After PMIP6 deployment, we will have more common issues between MIP6
>> and PMIP6.
>>
>> It makes sense to take the same approach to solve the same goal at
>> MIP6 and PMIP6.
>>
>> regards,
>> ryuji
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2009/04/08, at 16:29, <Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>
>> <Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There is an issue in the current debate that we should put to rest.
>>> Netext proposes to extend PMIP6 to support multihoming, flow  
>>> mobility
>>> and inter-technology handovers (in addition to others over which
>>> there is
>>> an agreement on).
>>>
>>> It is recognized that host based Mobile IP (RFC3775) and DSMIP6 has
>>> these capabilities currently. I dont think there is any debate about
>>> that.
>>> However there is an interested group of people within the IETF
>>> community who would like to extend PMIP6 to support these features  
>>> as
>>> well.
>>> It is not uncommon in the IETF to have multiple competing protocols
>>> provide similar functionality. The industry will ultimately choose  
>>> an
>>> appropriate solution depending on the needs. So I dont think we can
>>> just quash the idea of working on these extensions simply because we
>>> already have a protocol that does it.
>>> It is also noted that one of the primary reasons for developing  
>>> PMIP6
>>> was to provide mobility without host involvement. The term
>>> "host-changes" in the context of the current discussion are still  
>>> to a
>>> large extent based on the PMIP6 intent. As long as we are not  
>>> defining
>>> a new protocol on the host, we can consider the host as being
>>> unmodified (from this disucssions PoV).
>>>
>>> In summary I would say that this is not a discussion about whether
>>> host based Mobile IP (MIP6) is the appropriate protocol for  
>>> providing
>>> multihoming, Flow mobility and, inter-tech HOs but rather about what
>>> can be done to provide similar capabilities to PMIP6 without  
>>> (grossly)
>>> changing the basic protocol principles.
>>>
>>> -Raj
>>>
>>> P.S: I recognize that some would say that inter-tech HOs and
>>> multihoming are already features supported by PMIP6. In the current
>>> context of Netext, what is being proposed is basically  
>>> enhancements to
>>> PMIP6 that address scenarios not currently in the base spec.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetExt mailing list
>>> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
>>> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetExt mailing list
>> NetExt at mail.mobileip.jp
>> http://www.mobileip.jp/mailman/listinfo/netext
>