Re: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution Vs Asolutionbased on MIP6

Folowing up on Phil's note, we haven't heard much comment on this thread 
from proponents of a pure PMIP solution. I'd like to distinguish between 
Vidya's comments and Phil's response which, I assume, are about the 
technical desirability of using the MIP6 Mobiity Header format to implement 
the NETLMM architecture and the two PMIP drafts that will be presented in 
the MIP6 WG. I'll let Phil and Vidya and anyone else who cares to comment 
work through the technical issues on that, I'm more interested in the two 
PMIP drafts.

Perhaps one of the authors of the two PMIP drafts that are to be presented 
in the MIP6 WG meeting would care to comment why they believe that PMIP is 
technically superior to the DT NETLMM solution? Arguments about probability 
of deployment or other such are interesting, but most decisions about 
alternatives in IETF are premised intitially on technical arguments. 
References to the WG's problem statement and goals drafts 
(draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-05.txt and draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-05.txt, 
now with the IESG for publication approval) pointing out the superiority of 
PMIP for satisfying the goals that the WG has agreed to are likely to be 
especially convincing. The only comment I've heard so far is that the DT 
draft introduces unnecessary new terminology.

            jak 

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm