Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [netlmm] The term LMA
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 12:02:02 +0200
Message-ID: <BBBE5BAA3B351C488C415EA662EA8840043B94D4@FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <3C31CDD06342EA4A8137716247B1CD680202A3B4@zagh223a.ww300.siemens.net>
Thread-Topic: [netlmm] The term LMA
Thread-Index: AceTo0X3/hQXoRFVTVWPUpirH8Yg8gAAzkCQAAMz6VA=
References: <E1HmQ8Z-0007mt-M6@megatron.ietf.org>
 <3C31CDD06342EA4A8137716247B1CD680202A3B4@zagh223a.ww300.siemens.net>
From: "KASSI-LAHLOU Mohammed RD-CORE-CAE"
 <mohamed.kassilahlou@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: "Damic, Damjan" <damjan.damic@siemens.com>, <conny.larsson@ericsson.com>, 
 <vidyan@qualcomm.com>, <basavaraj.patil@nsn.com>
Cc: netlmm@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Errors-To: netlmm-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

I think that there is no dependence between "global mobility" and "host" =
or between "local mobility" and "network".

Kassi=20

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Damic, Damjan [mailto:damjan.damic@siemens.com]=20
Envoy=E9 : vendredi 11 mai 2007 11:17
=C0 : conny.larsson@ericsson.com; vidyan@qualcomm.com; =
basavaraj.patil@nsn.com
Cc : netlmm@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [netlmm] The term LMA

Hello Conny et al.,

I believe the notion for using PMIP6 for network-based global-scoped =
mobility is not essentially in conflict with the WG charter.

For example,
Section 3.10. of RFC4831 specifies: Goal 10: Localized Mobility =
Management Independent of Global Mobility Management To my understanding =
this section implies localized mobility management is provided by the =
network, where global mobility protocol is run directly from the mobile =
nodes.
This requirement will not be broken if the network is able provide a =
more advanced service for the nodes which are completely lacking the =
mobility support. Those MNs comprising the MIP6 mobile client probably =
could/should override this, and manage global mobility on their own...

Also, placement of HA/LMA within a certain part of the network doesn't =
categorize protocol local or global by default.
If trying to map the "PMIP6 domain" within an individual SDO =
architecture it's not as clear what kind of topology this should be.
Relative MAG-LMA distance might be a matter of perception; it surely =
affects the performance (optimizations could solve this), and does make =
a constraint to use the same security model, but doesn't seem much more =
than that. Am I maybe missing something here?

Regards,
	Damjan




>Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 10:05:55 +0200
>From: Conny Larsson <conny.larsson@ericsson.com>
>Subject: Re: [netlmm] The term LMA
>To: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@qualcomm.com>, 	Basavaraj Patil
>	<basavaraj.patil@nsn.com>
>Cc: netlmm@ietf.org
>Message-ID: <464423E3.1040603@ericsson.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
>
>Hi Vidya and Raj,
>
>Although I agree with Raj that there is a confusion among the potential =

>customers of PMIP6 as they intend to use PMIP in a global scope whereas =

>the intention of this working group is to use it for local mobility.
>
>However, if the PMIP6 protocol is going to be used for global mobility=20
>I believe there are issues that needs to be solved.
>One that comes to my mid is how to solve route optimization in PMIP6.=20
>There are others, Vidya mentioned one, and I'm sure other people will=20
>find additional issues that needs to be looked into.
>
>For the SDO's I assume that they have to decide the applicability of=20
>the
>PMIP6 protocol based on the current scope of PMIP6. If the SDO's would=20
>like to use it for global mobility (which I agree is possible) they=20
>have to consider potential trade offs when making the decision.
>
>/Conny
>
>
>Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
>>
>> Hi Raj,
>> The IETF did look at this work space and make a conscious decision=20
>> that the applicability of a network-based mobility
>management protocol
>> is only appropriate for local mobility.  So, this charter has been=20
>> scoped to what was believed to be appropriate.  The intent was never=20
>> to have this protocol be applicable for all kinds of global
>mobility -
>> the fact that some systems may be considering this protocol
>for global
>> mobility is something they need to make a conscious decision on,=20
>> keeping in mind that the IETF is only developing this for
>local mobility.
>>
>> I also don't believe it is a simple charter revision
>involving removal
>> of the term "local".  If we had to recommend this protocol
>for use in
>> the same scope as MIP6, as seems to be the discussion, we
>will need to
>> tackle how cross-domain security associations can be practical and=20
>> other features that are feasible with MIP6 as the MN moves across=20
>> various domains and heterogeneous technologies.  Extending the scope=20
>> is going to require a number of other aspects to be flushed
>out and I
>> don't believe is appropriate at this time.  We need to
>deliver on the
>> chartered work before we can ask for more things and scope expansion.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vidya

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm