Re: [netext] second revision of the new charter for theworking group

["MELIA TELEMACO" <[e-mail]>]

Right, and to add credibility to the statement below we did implement the ideas described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bernardos-mif-pmip-01. The tests conducted so far are successful. The next version of the ID will describe the solution and limitations met so far.
The only things that we need on the MN are:
- routing tables update
- smarter source address selection functions (and this is probably also required for the virtual interface part)

But I assume this is part of the standard IP behavior...


telemaco


-----Message d'origine-----
De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Envoyé : mercredi 20 janvier 2010 11:12
À : [e-mail]; MELIA TELEMACO; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Objet : RE: [netext] second revision of the new charter for theworking group

Hi Julien,


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part
> de Laganier, Julien
> Envoyé : mardi 19 janvier 2010 19:02
> À : MELIA TELEMACO; Jari Arkko; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [netext] second revision of the new charter for theworking
> group
> 
> Hi Telemaco,
> 
> MELIA TELEMACO wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jari,
> >
> > Thanks for the updated text.
> >
> > However, I still believe that the part of the charter referring to the
> > "single host interface" needs to be changed.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> > IMHO the single host interface concept is too restrictive and we should
> > be open to other possibilities. Part of the work should be to
> > investigate what solutions are out there, ideally co-ordinating with
> > the findings of the MIF wg (MIF does not address mobility, we should).
> 
> From its inception the NETLMM WG has assumed no host change, and so far
> NETEXT has abided.
> 
> Now we are discussing extending the charter to unmodified host _IP stack
> operation_, which would let the WG leverage on underlying layers that
> present a single interface to the IP layer while hiding link changes and
> attachment to multiple MAGs.
> 
> This still fits with the original "no host change" motto insofar these
> underlying layers are not in our (the IETF) control and we do not specify
> them.
> 

Actually, the "single interface" approach may not be the only way. For instance, draft-bernardos-mif-pmip leverages on the weak host model (RFC 1122) to address IP flow mobility issue and leave the host unmodified. This is why we think the charter should not be so "solution oriented".

Pierrick

> It's a quite a change, and my understanding is that we have no consensus
> to go beyond that.
> 
> --julien
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext

*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************