Re: Why is PMIP a superior solution for NETLMM requireiments?(was:Re: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMMDT SolutionVsAsolutionbased on MIP6)

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
> At the last couple of IETFs, we have discussed this quite a bit, but 
> the topic seems to be coming up again. In my view, the use of 
> network-based mobility for anything other than local mobility is bad.
>  Global mobility management is meant to deal with mobility across 
> heterogeneous interfaces and mobility across administrative domains. 
> Network-based mobility solutions have inherent problems with such 
> scenarios. Just because PMIPv6 is based on MIP6 does not mean that it
>  automatically has the same scope as MIP6. IMHO, NETLMM and PMIP6 are
>  solving the same problem and suffer from exactly the same
> limitations in terms of applicability.
> 
> As many would recall, we had a discussion in Dallas on network-based
>  global mobility and talked about why it is a bad idea. As far as I 
> know, nothing has happened to change that view.

Prior to Dallas, we have also seen host _and_ router mobility prototyped
and tested with BGP, no host involvement, over large areas, through
public Internet core routers.

I wouldn't be that quick to discard global network-based mobility.  I
would debate the meaning of 'global' though.

Alex

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm