[Netext] Scope of proposed work

Hi Ryuji,

Tough question :(

In principle I agree that we should attempt to use the work already done in
MEXT for MIP6. And given that PMIP6 itself is derived from MIP6 the add-on
features should follow as well.

However you simply cannot ignore the fact that with MIP6 the MN itself is
able to do signaling to control flows, or handovers etc. Given the
difference in the models and the intent to not involve the MN, it might not
be quite as simple to say that we will inherit and use the work already
done. 

There may be a need to do some adaptations. I don't know the answer really
because this goes into the solution space (and we are not there yet). I
agree with your view that we should take the same approach (as MIP6) to
provide such functionality.

-Raj  

On 4/8/09 4:52 PM, "ext 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.
> 
> 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
> 