RE: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution VsAsolutionbased on MIP6

I don't think the degree of closeness to MIP6 needs to be debated at
this time. That's why I said PMIP-like in my email. 

Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberts Phil-APR042 [mailto:Phil.Roberts@motorola.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:32 PM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya; Soliman, Hesham; Basavaraj Patil; ext 
> James Kempf; netlmm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT 
> Solution VsAsolutionbased on MIP6 
> 
> 
> I think there are two separate questions.  One is "Why didn't 
> the design team choose PMIP6?" and the other is "Why did the 
> design team produce the protocol it did?"  You're not 
> presuming that the DT should have chosen PMIP6 are you?
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:vidyan@qualcomm.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:54 PM
> > To: Soliman, Hesham; Basavaraj Patil; ext James Kempf; 
> Roberts Phil- 
> > APR042; netlmm@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution 
> > VsAsolutionbased on MIP6
> > 
> > I fully agree with Hesham here. I think the NETLMM DT 
> really needs to 
> > provide an explanation of why a PMIP-like solution was not chosen as
> the
> > network-mobility protocol. The answer that "the DT 
> deliberated it and 
> > decided against it" is unacceptable. Clearly, the folks 
> outside the DT 
> > have no visibility to this. And, having talked to folks from the DT,
> I'm
> > still not clear on the reasons.
> > 
> > I think this is the responsibility of the DT to prove to the rest of
> the
> > community why the solution chosen best satisfies the 
> requirement for 
> > network-based mobility.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Vidya
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Soliman, Hesham
> > > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:04 AM
> > > To: Basavaraj Patil; ext James Kempf; Phil Roberts; Narayanan, 
> > > Vidya; netlmm@ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: [netlmm] Network-based mobility - NETLMM DT Solution 
> > > VsAsolutionbased on MIP6
> > >
> > >
> > >  > I don't think that there is much to be gained by doing a
> > > > comparison of the  > NETLMM DT protocol solution vs "pure
> > > PMIP solution". This is  > not a question  > of whether 
> one protocol 
> > > is better suited or superior in  > terms or performance  
> > or simple 
> > > etc. I am not commenting in any way about the use  > of 
> the mobility  
> > > > header to implement the NETLMM protocol here, but rather  > 
> > > presenting another  > view about NETLMM and PMIP6.
> > >  > Given that the IETFs mainstream solution for IPv6 
> mobility  > is 
> > > MIP6 (I hope  > we are not going to get into a debate about this 
> > > statement  > :) ), there is or  > may be a desire by 
> either SDOs or 
> > > operators considering  > deployment of MIP6  > to also have the 
> > > capability to use the same infrastructure (HA and  > 
> associated AAA) 
> > > for hosts that do not have MIP6 capability or for  > 
> transparently 
> > > supporting mobility for
> > > IPv6 hosts (for  > whatever reason such  > transparent 
> mobility is 
> > > needed).
> > >
> > > => I completely agree with Raj. Let's save the excitement, there 
> > > isn't going to be any significant performance differences between 
> > > the the netlmm protocol and the "hypothetical" PMIPv6 protocol. 
> > > Think about it from a simulation point of view, there is not 
> > > difference. The difference comes from the ability to reuse MIPv6 
> > > infrastructure and its extensions, in a seamless manner.
> > >
> > >  >
> > >  > So instead of a prolonged discussion about the 
> (de)merits of  > 
> > > NETLMM and  > PMIP, we should maybe consider that the IETF 
> > > standardize  > both and let the  > industry pick and choose which 
> > > protocol makes sense in a  > certain deployment
> > >
> > > => It would be preferrable to do one protocol. But before we even 
> > > decide on this, why can't the netlmm WG (DT, chairs
> > > ...etc) explain the reasons for not choosing PMIP and we can at 
> > > least use that as a starting point for the discussion of 
> whether we 
> > > should do 1 or 2 protocols. I find it counter intuitive to simply 
> > > ignore PMIP as a viable option. That is, unless I missed some 
> > > explanations that were already documented somewhere.
> > >
> > > Hesham
> > >
> 

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