[Netext] Keep missing the point .. Re: next steps for netext

[Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com (Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com)]

The two features that are at the centre of this discussion are:
Multihoming (and flow mobility) and Inter-technology handovers.

It is natural to compare Mobile IPv6 and PMIP6 protocols in terms of how
best they are able to provide solutions for these. It is okay to discuss
them in the context of the IETF (I don't see where else you would have a
debate of IETF protocols).

Debating which protocol is deployed currently or will get deployed is less
useful. It is better to have a discussion of the protocol issues, scenarios,
limitations and solutions as a means to making a decision of what work we
choose to do. Deployments and industry will anyway choose a protocol that
best fits their needs and maybe we can do them a favor by providing a
comparative analysis via this discussion.

-Raj 


On 4/7/09 1:11 PM, "ext George Tsirtsis" <tsirtsis at googlemail.com> wrote:

> First of all no one is deploying anything yet :-)
> 
> In any case discussion is useful. People also want to deploy NAT66 but
> the community is debating vigorously whether the IETF should define
> these...in other words just because people want to do something it
> does not mean that the IETF has to comply.
> 
> George
> 
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Vijay Devarapalli <vijay at wichorus.com> wrote:
>> George, Hesham,
>> 
>> I don't see the point in having philosophical discussions on whether
>> Mobile IPv6 or Proxy Mobile IPv6 should be used at this point. That ship
>> has sailed. What we have as a reality is folks deploying systems with
>> inter access technology handovers with PMIPv6 as the mobility management
>> protocol. Asking these folks to now use Mobile IPv6 does not help
>> anyone, IMHO.
>> 
>> Vijay
>> 
>>