On Jun 9, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Jouni wrote: > > On Jun 9, 2014, at 5:45 AM, Weixinpeng wrote: > >> Hi Jouni, all, >> " >> .....The protocol solutions >> should be based on existing IP mobility protocols, either host- or >> network-based, such as Mobile IPv6 [RFC6275, 5555], Proxy Mobile IPv6 >> [RFC5213, 5844] and NEMO [RFC3963]. However, mobility management in a >> limited area, such as within an autonomous system, is not strictly >> limited to mentioned IP mobility protocols but can be any existing or >> a new protocol solution enabling the movement of a mobile node such >> as routing protocols....." >> As my understanding for this text, DMM work group aims to realize mobility >> management by using/extending the existing host- or network-based protocols >> for all the scenarios except for the limited area (relatively small network >> as my understanding). Right? > > The guidance above is to attempt to build on top of existing IP mobility > protocols. However, if current IP mobility protocols are unfit for the > desired use case or solution, then within a closed system i.e. not internet > wide, basically anything goes such as routing based solutions or whatever > folks come up with. Here the example was AS wide (which can be quite large > actually). The key point the above tries to address is that whatever you do > in your own administered network is your own business as long as it does not > propagate to Internet. >
Basically, this says "in limited scale, a non-MIP solution may be used". The question, for sake of clarification, is: - Is DMM WG supposed to work on such solutions as well? - Or, are we just acknowledging the fact that there may be such solutions outside the scope of DMM WG, and our solutions may have to co-exist with them. Alper > - Jouni > > > > >> Thanks. >> BR >> Xinpeng >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen >>> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 7:47 PM >>> To: dmm@ietf.org >>> Subject: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Minor changes.. >>> >>> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.tx >>> t >>> >>> IMHO..the charter as it is today, would allow pretty much any solution from >>> legacy anchoring to herd of pigeons carrying IP.. ;-) >>> >>> I have put in editorial changes of my own and clear text proposals received >>> from others. >>> >>> - Jouni >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> dmm@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
