Re: [netext] Comments on I-D:draft-wakikawa-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation

Hello folks,

The problem isn't just for PMIP, but also for MIP.  Here's a draft
from a couple of years ago with some different details.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-perkins-mext-hatunaddr-01.txt

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 7/16/2013 3:56 PM, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
> Hi Raj,
>
> Thanks for the comments.
> I remember Vijay's proposal and found his slide;-)
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/73/slides/netlmm-4.pdf
> I should probably reuse his slide in Berlin;-)
>
> The idea is around for a while. We should standardise an extension now so that PMIP can be deployed more.
>
> thanks,
> ryuji
>
> On Jul 17, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Basavaraj Patil <bpatil1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ryuji,
>>
>> The idea of splitting the CP and UP for PMIP6 has been around for quite a while.
>> In fact if I were to recollect, Vijay D. had proposed this during the development of the PMIP6 protocol in Netlmm.
>>
>> Its a good idea to allow the protocol to optionally have a separate CP/UP between the MAG and LMA. It would essentially be equivalent to 3GPPs GTP-C and GTP-U.
>>
>> The draft itself is preliminary and hopefully will be improved if the WG decides to adopt it.
>> Looking forward to the presentation/discussion in Berlin.
>>
>> -Raj
>>
>> -- 
>> Basavaraj Patil
>> _______________________________________________
>> netext mailing list
>> netext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.