[Netext] Scope of proposed work

I might also add that the intent is not to bring feature parity between
MIP6 and PMIP6, but to consider work on features which are of interest
to PMIP6. Again, it is recognized that certain features are supported by
MIP6 already, but scenarios where PMIP6 is the candidate may need those
features on PMIP6.

-Rajeev

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp 
> [mailto:netext-bounces at mail.mobileip.jp] On Behalf Of 
> Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:30 PM
> To: netext at mail.mobileip.jp
> Subject: [Netext] Scope of proposed work
> 
> 
> 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
> 