IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible? draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps

Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> Sat, 14 July 2012 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC0B11E8086 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 flJsMt3jdCYP for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net (smtp.netregistry.net [202.124.241.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1799011E8072 for <netext@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 21:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [60.242.128.199] (helo=[192.168.0.3]) by smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net protocol: esmtpa (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1SpuDe-0005Lv-Jg; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:44:39 +1000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:44:30 +1000
From: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
To: Seil Jeon <seiljeon@av.it.pt>, sarikaya@ieee.org
Message-ID: <CC2735D7.267D9%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Thread-Topic: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible? draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps
In-Reply-To: <001501cd6132$9b3e8fc0$d1bbaf40$@av.it.pt>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-User: hesham@elevatemobile.com
Cc: netext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] PMIP purists - is PMIP-NEMO impossible? draft-bernardos-netext-pmipv6-nemo-ps
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:44:25 -0000

>
>[SJ] In my knowledge, an MN doesn't need to be changed if the MR acts as a
>moving MAG, which has the responsibility of MN detection i.e. MN's attach
>and detach, and sending/receiving PBU/PBA instead of the MN. Regarding on
>this issue, it was described at the Paris meeting I remember.

=> Moving MAG = MR in RFC 3963 basically. So it's not PMIP anymore it's
normal MIPv6. 

Hesham

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email