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

[vijay at wichorus.com (Vijay Devarapalli)]

Hesham Soliman wrote:
> I don't know which people you're talking about or on which planet this stuff
> is being deployed. 

Thats easy. Search for "LTE HRPD" at google.com. :)

 > In any case, I'm interested in discussing technical
> aspects of this work and I have zero interest in politics and projections.

But I don't see that. You seem to want to tell people to use Mobile IPv6 
instead of PMIPv6. That doesn't help anyone, IMHO.

FWIW, the way I see it, the flow mobility solution for PMIPv6 does not 
have to be that different from what we have for MIPv6. Instead of the 
mobile node sending the service selection option (defined in RFC 5149) 
and flow identification option in the BU, it?s the MAG that sends this 
information in the PBU. The solution is the same. You tell the HA or the 
LMA which flow filters to install.

The solution could be along the lines I wrote in section 3.3 of 
draft-devarapalli-netlmm-multihoming-01.txt (submitted in Nov 2007). It says

    For this scenario to work, the mobile node must be able to indicate
    to the attached MAG which flow will be sent over the attachment to
    the MAG.  It may do this by indicating the service identifer during
    the layer 2 attachment to the MAG.  The service identifier is
    described in [4].  The MAG, in turn must include the flow information
    in the Proxy Binding Update sent to the LMA.  The MAG may use the
    Service Selection option [4] in the Proxy Binding Update to indicate
    the flow information.  The MAG may also contruct a flow filter and
    convey the information in the Proxy Binding Update.  See [3] for more
    information on carrying flow filters in the proxy binding update.

    The LMA processes the Proxy Binding Update from the MAG and creates a
    filter based on the flow information.  The flow filters may be stored
    in the binding cache entry for the mobile node.

    [3]  Soliman, H., "Flow Bindings in Mobile IPv6 and Nemo Basic
         Support", draft-soliman-monami6-flow-binding-04 (work in
         progress), March 2007.

    [4]  Korhonen, J., Nilsson, U., and V. Devarapalli, "Service
         Selection for Mobile IPv6", draft-korhonen-mip6-service-04 (work
         in progress), October 2007.

[4] got published as RFC 5149.

Anyway, I don't think we should get into discussing solutions at this 
point. The above is to just show that the MIPv6 solutions can be re-used 
for PMIPv6. We don't have to re-invent what we have done in the IETF so far.

I would prefer that we let the market decide whether they want to go 
with MIPv6 or PMIPv6. Not for us lecture folks to use MIPv6 or PMIPv6. 
that would be a political discussion. :)

Vijay

> 
> Hesham
> 
> 
> On 8/04/09 4:59 AM, "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
>>
> 
>