Re: NETLMM and PMIPv6 (RE: [netlmm] Consensus call to makedraft-giaretta-netlmm-dt-protocol-02.txt a WG draft)

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> (Cross-posting to MIP6)
> 
> All, I would like to understand how making this document a WG 
> document impacts any Proxy MIP6 solution that may be standardized at 
> the IETF. Jari's email on the MIP6 ML indicated that he would like to
> see this discussion happen before a decision is made about the NETLMM
> DT document.
> 
> Personally, I think that the fundamental requirements are almost 
> identical in both cases.

Except that reqs/ps and security context is precisely described in
netlmm WG items while for PMIPv6 we have no other reqs.

The netlmm problem statement document discusses problems with existing
(at that time) approaches to "netlmm" concepts - h/fmipv6, cellular IP,
gtp.  At the time of that writing the PMIPv6 documents did not yet exist
(draft-chowdhury-netmip6-00.txt and
draft-gundavelli-netlmm-mip6-proxy-00.txt)

Do you think the netlmm PS document should be updated to discuss issues
with netmip6 and with netlmm-mip6-proxy protocols?

I have some ideas in that space.  For example,
draft-gundavelli-netlmm-mip6-proxy-00.txt states that it improves
handover performance (because MN "just" does "normal" IPv6 attachment,
instead of mobility-related messaging).  Later on it states that MN uses
DHCP.  Using DHCP is known to be a strong bottleneck for handover
performance, with many implementations.  The DHCP issues for "netlmm"
concepts have been largely discussed here, and documented here.

> I think summarizing the differences in requirements and discussing 
> whether standardizing both solutions makes sense would be worthwhile
>  at this time.

Do you mean we should standardize PMIPv6 just because netlmm protocol is 
being pursued?

Alex

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